News | Climate Change

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/uns-climate-report-one-sided/story-e6frg6so-1225888714749

THE IPCC's report on climate change failed to make clear it often presented a worst-case scenario on global warming, an investigation has found.

THE UN body that advises governments on climate change failed to make clear how its landmark report on the impact of global warming often presented a worst-case scenario, an investigation has concluded.
A summary report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on regional impacts focused on the negative consequences of climate change and failed to make clear that there would also be some benefits of rising temperatures.
The report adopted a "one-sided" approach that risked being interpreted as an "alarmist view".
For example, the IPCC had stated that 60 per cent of the Great Barrier Reef was projected to suffer regular bleaching by 2020 but had failed to make clear that this was the worst projected outcome and the impact might be far smaller.
The wording of a statement on between 3000 and 5000 more heat-related deaths a year in Australian cities had suggested that all of the projected increase would be the result of climate change, whereas most of it would be caused by the rising population and an increase in the number of elderly people.
The report, which underpinned the Copenhagen summit last December, wrongly suggested that climate change was the main reason communities faced severe water shortages and neglected to make clear that population growth was a much bigger factor.
The inquiry into the IPCC was ordered by the Dutch government after the UN body admitted its 2007 report contained two important errors.
It is the first of two studies this week into the veracity of climate science. The second, focusing on emails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, will be published today. That study, led by Muir Russell, is expected to dismiss claims the unit's scientists manipulated their findings but may say they should have been more willing to share their data.
The IPCC's report, used by governments around the world to develop emissions policies, falsely claimed that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. Most glaciologists believe that they will take at least 300 years to melt. The report also said that more than half of The Netherlands was below sea level (the correct figure is 26 per cent).
The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, which published the results of its investigation yesterday, concluded that the IPCC's main findings were justified and climate change did indeed pose substantial risks.
But it said the IPCC could strengthen its credibility by describing the full range of possible outcomes, rather than picking on the most alarming projections. It concluded: "Without proper explanation, the results at the summary level of Working Group II (which focused on regional impacts) could easily be interpreted as being an alarmist view."
It said the report had chosen to highlight the most serious risks but had "lacked a clear explanation of the choice of approach and its consequences".