Skip to content

How do we know? Because IPCC

Menu

Images

pg25

Twenty-third online page shows storm scientist exiting with the glad tidings that an IPCC report represents a uniquely international and scientific consensus. Teacher then introduces an economist to explain that not everyone believed in climate change and how the IPCC handled that.
Dialogue:
But it was all worth it; the long nights, the heated arguments.
For two reasons: first of all, all that debating resulted in better reports.
Second, as the governments unanimously approved the final text and accepted the reports, they became government reports, not reports from the scientists.
Each time we did them, the IPCC reports became a uniquely international and unequivocal consensus on human knowledge about climate change, it’s effects and ways to avoid the worst of those effects.
Ah, it’s right there in the name, isn’t it? The InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change.
Thank you, Doctor!
….On that note…
Strange as it might seem today, not everyone agreed that the climate was changing, or that humans were responsible for the change.
What? No way!
Yes way.
Let me introduce Professor Pecunia to explain how the IPCC handled that
You’re an economist, right?
What’s an economist doing involved with the IPCC? — 23 of 31

October 1, 2020October 29, 2021

pg26

Twenty-fourth online page economist explaining how deniers were invited into the process and how that made the final conclusions even stronger.
Dialogue:
Well, everything that humans do has to do with the economy, and that’s certainly true of climate change.
Flooding cities or failing agriculture certainly cost money and disrupted commerce, and those climate skeptics you mentioned, many of them worried stopping climate change would cost them money.
But how did we deal with people that were skeptical about climate change, that was your question.
Well, if they had expertise, we invited them into the process.
Some were inside the IPCC anyway with major oil producing nations and industry groups as observers.
One time a prominent climate change denying scientist was even asked to be a lead author on an IPCC report.
If they’d had solid scientific evidence it would have changed the reports.
But there had been such rigorous review of so many lines of evidence, all pointing to the same conclusions, that…
Well, it wasn’t always easy. But it made the reports better.
Having them involved made us think harder about what the right answers were. — 24 of 31

October 1, 2020October 29, 2021

pg27

Twenty-fifth online page shows teacher recapping what students have learned.
Dialogue:
Thank you Professor Pecunia..
You’ve been very helpful.
Now... let’s recap.
An understanding of climate change, its impacts, and ways to save ourselves from the worst impacts was gained through thousands of scientists using the scientific method.

Those findings were validated and sharpened through peer review and perpetuated through citations by other scientists.

The IPCC’s volunteer scientists combined all these findings together, made sure virtually all the relevant experts in the world agreed on them, THEN made sure virtually every government in the world also agreed, right down to agreement on a line-by-line basis
Isn’t that the most amazing thing?
True consensus among the world’s scientists and governments. — 25 of 31

October 1, 2020October 29, 2021

Posts navigation

Menu

Home
Donate (we’re a charity)
Praise for Because IPCC
Volunteer
About
Terms of Use – Privacy – Credits – Copyright – Contact
Because IPCC is a project of the Canadian charity Succession, charitable number 854745940RR0001

Proudly powered by WordPress / Theme: Shoreditch by Automattic.