October 23, 2015 Post 8

When it comes to climate change, I am interested in few aspects more than the communication that takes place between parties when discussing it. Now, typically I think of climate communication in regards to the media, politicians, or any other way in which information on the topic is disseminated to the public. Rarely do I think of the communication that must take place between certain groups when constructing climate policy. However, there are a large number of acts of communication that must take place to create policy.

            In an ideal world, or in the “modern” perspective, scientific data would be given to policy makers directly from scientists and this would be the only basis for the world’s climate policy. Honestly, this view is simply too unrealistic. Instead we subscribe to the “post-modern” ways that illustrates many different groups contributing to the creation of climate policy. A massive web made up of the IPCC, research institutions, corporations, governments, NGOs, and much more can be used to show the flow of information that influences policy. One can imagine there is room for contradictions and blocks in communication within that web as so many different perspectives are thrown into the mix.

            Although there could be countless examples of how difficult having many sources influencing climate policy can be, we focused in class on the IPCC more specifically and how errors can occur due to the relaying of information across many different groups. The IPCC consists of three specific work groups, a number of task forces, and finally authors, reviewers, and contributors. Documents and policies must go through stages and pass through many of these groups to get to the final draft. Dr. Jessica O’Reilly noted two specific examples of how errors were made despite this process. The first error being a typo made in regards to Himalayan Glacier ice melt, and the second error referenced was an underestimation of sea level rise. While the second error was actually a conservative ploy by the scientist in charge to disallow any room for doubt, the first was simply an error. Due to a failure in this complex process, certain wording in the IPCC was contradictory to itself; “Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.12 below) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps getting warmer at the current rate. The glaciers will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates. Its total area will shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km² by the year 2035.” Despite the complex revision process, this sentence that stated both that the glaciers will disappear and that they will be reduced to 100,000 km² was still allowed to happen. Dr. O’Reilly points to some possible conclusions as to how to correct it such as using more sources that are from organizations other than NGOs, but it would be interesting to look further into how this revision process could be perfected so these wordings that fuel contrarians could be eliminated.