Climate compensation: How to act on scientific advice that’s politically inconvenient?

Pio ArceGenesis Photos - World Vision
Pio ArceGenesis Photos – World Vision

Ed note: The author of this article, Roger Pielke Jnr, is speaking at next month’s Auckland conference. See his personal blog here: rogerpielkejr.blogspot.nl

The issue of compensation for historic emissions has continued to gain traction in the international community. But in the case of loss and damage from extreme events, there is at present no evidentiary basis to support demands for reparations.

In 2012 and 2013, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued two major assessments on extreme weather that show a) little evidence to support claims that tropical cyclones, floods, drought, winter storms or tornadoes had become more frequent or intense and b) that data cannot detect changes in climate influencing the rising costs of disasters. Yet various reports in the media (both op-eds by senior politicians, academics and journalists) were made without any supporting evidence or attribution.

Such debates over extreme weather require us to think harder about the relationship between the evidence, politics and institutions of scientific advice.

Read the rest of the article here: http://bit.ly/1kpB5hn