An IPCC document produced for its meeting in Yokohama uses emphatically activist language. What happened to the scientific body delivering a scientific report based on scientific research?
Page two of this document contains this headline: Saving the Planet for Future Generations. Beneath it, we read: 'We must bequeath to future generations a safe environment in which to live, and that means properly understanding the information published by the IPCC and taking action in Yokohama.'
Analysis via Donna Laframboise:
First, the IPCC is supposed to be policy neutral. Words like must are not supposed to be in its vocabulary. It is explicitly not the IPCC’s job to tell us what wemust do.
Second, the IPCC is charged with examining existing scientific research. It is well beyond the purview of that organization to express opinions about what any of us owe future generations.
Third, the IPCC believes there’s a proper way to understand the material it produces. In other words, it’s trying to de-legitimize independent opinion.
Fourth, since the IPCC is supposed to be a policy-neutral body, it has no business talking about taking action – in Yokohama or anywhere else. Science is one thing. Policy (actions) are another matter entirely.