From Watts Up With That?

Jessica Weinkle’s Substack, Conflicted has an informative article on the concentration of influence among a few individuals in climate science and policy.

The Power Dynamics of Climate Change Research

In the realm of climate change science, it appears that a select few wield significant power. As highlighted in Jessica Weinkle’s article, there’s a concentrated influence in the hands of a handful of individuals. These individuals not only shape the narrative but also control the trajectory of global climate change research.

“In a video of an April IPCC scenario workshop, a panel discussion argued that the IPCC does not have any scenarios it merely assess scenarios. Professor Tejal Kanitkar called it out as nonsense in practice. There are too many (i.e. a powerful few) who design, select, and prioritize scenarios while also being influential authors of IPCC reports.”

The Bottleneck in Global Climate Change Research

The symbolic power of the IPCC seems to be exacerbating a significant bottleneck in global climate change research. This bottleneck is further intensified by the organization of careers and research trajectories around the development of assessment reports.

“Global climate change research suffers from a rather significant bottleneck and the symbolic power of the IPCC exacerbates the issue by organizing careers and research trajectories around the development of assessment reports.”

The Role of ScenarioMIP

ScenarioMIP, or the Scenario Model Intercomparison Project, plays a pivotal role in the selection and prioritization of scenarios used in climate change science. Its influence is so profound that it’s challenging to overstate its importance in shaping our understanding of climate and climate policy.

“In its selection and prioritization of scenarios, ScenarioMIP has profound implications for climate research and policy. It is hard to overstate how important the work of this small group is for how we ultimately think about climate and climate policy.”

The CMIP Influence

The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) stands as a global bottleneck for climate change projections. Its influence is so vast that it’s described as one of the foundational elements of climate science.

“By coordinating the design and distribution of global climate model simulations of the past, current, and future climate, the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) has become one of the foundational elements of climate science.”

The IAMC and Its Growing Interdependency with the IPCC

The Integrated Assessment Modeling Consortium (IAMC) was created in response to an IPCC call in 2007. Its role? To lead the IAM community in the development of new scenarios used by climate modelers.

“The Integrated Assessment Modeling Consortium (IAMC) was created in response to an IPCC call in 2007 for a research organization to lead the IAM community in the development of new scenarios used by climate modelers.”

The Concentration of Power

One of the most striking revelations from the article is the overlap of individuals involved in various committees related to climate change research. This overlap suggests a concentration of power in the hands of a few.

“It’s the same people over and over again. This is concentrated power; a handful of people that shape the entire world of climate change research.”

The Need for Structural and Cultural Change

The article concludes with a call for structural and cultural change, emphasizing the importance of transparency and accountability in the decision-making processes related to climate change research.

“This is not a problem that is resolved by a systematic pursuit of knowledge developed through a new research program, as Skea suggests. It is a problem that is addressed through structural and cultural change.”

It’s essential to understand the underlying power dynamics that shape the narrative. The article by Jessica Weinkle sheds light on these dynamics, revealing a concentrated influence in the hands of a select few. As with any scientific endeavor, transparency, accountability, and a diversity of voices are crucial for ensuring that the research serves the greater good and not just a select few.

Jessica Weinkle’s full article is well worth a read and she runs an excellent substack worth subscribing to.