Joseph Romm, writing in Grist, highlights a key consequence of the consensus approach used in the IPCC Assessment Reports on Climate Change. While those who question the validity of climate change have often cited lack of consensus around scientific issues as a reason for doubt, it can be argued that adopting a consensual approach actually means that the Assessment Report conclusions are conservative, underestimating future climate change impacts. And this has serious implications for our response.
There is no doubt that many processes influencing climate change (and its impacts) are poorly understood. I've said before that incomplete scientific proof has never stopped people from proceeding with plans in other spheres of life. But where specific climate-related changes and processes have already been clearly observed, if they cannot be adequately explained for incorporation in forecasting models, then the IPCC tends to err on the conservative side. Policymakers need to recognise that there are more extreme possibilities that consensus may exclude or downplay.
Comments