Köpenhamnskonferensens legitimitet?

Tällberggruppens klimatalarmist Johan Rockström -- en av plenumtalarna i Köpenhamn -- får illustrera detta inlägg.


-
Har kollat några nyckelpersoner i organisationen som anvarade för Köpenhamnsmötet, International Alliance of Research Universities (IARU), samt talare under mötet. Dessa tycks genomgående vara akademiker som inte är klimatforskare. Någon har forskningsområdet "climate impacts". Flera har positioner i styrelser och organ inom universitets- eller den vetenskapliga världen och andra är mer eller mindre klimatktivister inom ramen för sin roll på universiteten (exempel).

En mötesledare på klimatkonferensen, klimatforskare professor Mike Hulme, uppmärksammade i denna BBC-artikel att IARU är en organisation som inte skapats av eller står under vare sig FN eller länders regeringar utan 2006 skapades mellan 10 självutnämnda toppuniversitet. De tycks inte ha någon koppling till etablerade miljö- eller hälsoorganisationer, inom eller utom FN. Då de varken har klimatforskarkompetens eller politiskt tydligt ursprung bör det kanske finnas skäl att ifrågasätta om Köpenhamnskonferensens skarpa uttalanden om forskning och politik -- att vi nu är i en värre situation än IPCC:s värsta scenario eller att radikala politiska beslut om snabba åtgärder krävs -- har något större värde.

Ett avsnitt ur Hulmes artikel:

Last week's conference has been widely reported as one at which the world's scientists delivered a "final warning" to negotiators about the necessity for a powerful political deal on climate.

Some commentators branded it "The Emergency Science Conference".

The six key messages include statements that:

"the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realised"

"there is no excuse for inaction"

"the influence of vested interests that increase emissions" must be reduced

"regardless of how dangerous climate change is defined", rapid, sustained and effective mitigation is required to avoid reaching it

There is a fair amount of "motherhood and apple pie" involved in the 600-word statement - who could disagree, for example, that climate risks are felt unevenly across the world, or that we need sustainable jobs?


But there are two aspects of the statement which are noteworthy and on which I would like to reflect: whose views does it represent, and what are the "actions" being called for?

Copenhagen consensus?

The Copenhagen conference was no Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) event.

It was not a process initiated and conducted by the world's governments; there was no systematic synthesis, assessment and review of research findings as in the IPCC, and there was certainly no collective mechanism enabling the 2,000-plus researchers to consider drafts of the six key messages or to offer their own suggestions for what politicians may need to hear.
Debates included whether mimicking volcanoes could cool Earth


The conference was in fact convened by no established academic or professional body.

Unlike the American Geophysical Union (AGU), the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) or the UK's Royal Society - which also hold large conferences and from time to time issue carefully worded statements representing the views of professional bodies - this conference was organised by the International Alliance of Research Universities (IARU).

This little-heard-of coalition, launched in January 2006, consists of 10 of the world's self-proclaimed elite universities, including of course the University of Copenhagen.

IARU is not accountable to anyone and has no professional membership.

The statement therefore simply carries the weight of the secretariat of this ad-hoc conference, directed and steered by 10 self-elected universities.

The six key messages are not the collective voice of 2,000 researchers, nor are they the voice of established bodies such as the WMO. Neither do they arise from a collective endeavour of experts, for example through a considered process of screening, synthesising and reviewing.

Instead they were drafted largely before the conference started by the organising committee, sifting through research that they saw emerging around the world - some of it peer-reviewed, some of it not - and interpreting it for a political audience.

Taxing times

Which leads me to the second curiosity about this conference statement: what exactly is the "action" the conference statement is calling for? Are these messages expressing the findings of science or are they expressing political opinions?

Hela artikeln här.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tillbakalänkning: SvD; DN
Andra bloggar om: samhälle, miljö, Köpenhamn 2009, Köpenhamn, klimat, klimatpolitik, kyoto, kyoto2