IPCC History and Organization
First a look at the timeline. The IPCC has existed in one form or another dating back to the early 1980s. The origins of the org encompass various attempts to drive home the general notion that man is affected the climate, and that CO2 is the cause chosen. Clearly before this James Hansen seen as the godfather of AGW made his claims and set in motion the growing emphasis on CO2 being the primary cause of warming and that man's emissions were the primary culprit.
What we see from this is that the IPCC published 5 reports thus far with a sixth to occur soon. The reports are made up of a SPM, or executive summary and various sections from several working groups. See the diagram below. What is not well comprehended is how the SPM chapter dominates.
But first a few more words on the working groups. Working group 1 is the scientific sections, delving into the current state of science on climate. Other working groups cover the effects of the predictions of AGW and the social costs and the means to mitigate those effects.
This work has lead to the various COP conferences and agreements attempted, such as the Paris Agreement.
What is important to note is how the SPM leads the other working groups. It contains the high level summaries as the leaders of the IPCC want to project to policy makers. Several points of fact are worth noting and are very relevant to the validity of this process.
First of all the organization is appointed by governments not leaders in the industry. This means that these are political appointments. Second the SPM is written without the Working group 1 science section being published or vetted. In fact the SPM reigns supreme, and according to the leader of the IPCC the technical details will need to be changed to agree with the SPM. This makes the process non-scientific and more and more political.
The findings in the AR5 were of higher confidence while the warming predicted was lowered. Couple all of this with Climategate and the story about the IPCC becomes suspect at best.
In 2010 the predictions done by the IPCC were in question. Clearly this brought some attention as the following video details. But clearly this was not enough for reforms if they have occurred were simply to increase their confidence levels not change the level of doubt.
We should revisit occasionally what the proper role of government is. As the constitution was a good sense of direction, we need a core set of principles to add in order to deal with the future.
So many want to engineer society, remove risk, assist certain groups, rather than let individuals thrive and raise communities. Why?
Is Democracy where we all "get it good and hard" or is it the best means to a free society?
Should we roll with the special interests, or make the government achieve its proper role, what is that role, and how to do this?
When do deficits and governments become too large?
Government is becoming more elitist while trying to sell corrections to problems it created, what makes this possible?
This could also be inserted into the field above, or erased
Currently as a society, we are having a most difficult time discussing political issues. What is driving this? And why a rebirth in political culture would be a good thing.
Are "markets" dead as some would conjecture? Or is free enterprise what got us here?
At the heart of economics there are several possible economic schools of thought, the essence of these schools of thought and how they relate to our lives.
