Stephen Harper.. perhaps the ONLY sensible leader in the free world.

So.

Stephen Harper has been in the news lately, doing some admirable work in taking the lead in assisting Haiti, not only with their immediate needs, but in seeking to plan for long-term improvement of their dismal socio-economic situation which pre-dated the earthquake, and which contributed heavily to the carnage resulting from the earthquake.

And, while he took the lead, other so-called leaders just couldn't resist saying, "we want more", complaining yet again that Canada is not following the pack in seeking to hamper their economy to respond to climate issues in a manner that seems:

a) Unlikely to actually impact on climate; and
b) To be responding to a risk which is still poorly understood..  a risk which is "potential" and which, in some respects, promises to make our world an easier place to live - not a worse place.

And.. while the converted on either side may continue their partisan positions - that climate change can be completely ignored, or, that if we just send much more money to poorly governed countries, and, more importantly, to self-interested carbon brokers.. the world will be a perfect place.

But, finally, some sane and reasoned information from, *gasp*, client scientists of all things.

As reported Wednesday in Spiegal Online, climate scientists Richard Tol, Roger Pielke and Hans von Storch call for a reform of the IPCC and the resignation of its chairman, Rajendra Pachauri.  The article reports:

The ideals of the IPCC are both worthwhile and hard to live up to. Academics have all of the foibles that are seen in every other profession. Politicians and advocates seek to politicize scientific advice, often preferring to hide behind "the science" rather than explain the normative choices behind tough decisions. Such factors make it important for scientific advisory institutions to have rigorous and transparent policies to ensure trust and the credibility of their work. The IPCC has failed in this respect.


The IPCC's shortfalls are illustrated with the behavior of Pachauri, its chair since 2002. In recent months, Pachauri has participated in overt political advocacy, such as by calling on people to eat less meat and on the United States government to pass a certain climate policy. He has endorsed 350 parts per million as the right target for the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases, despite the IPCC offering no recommendation on such a target. Being a scientific advisor sometimes means recusing yourself from engaging in the political processes that you are advising. We expect no less from intelligence agencies advising the military and medical professionals advising governments on health and safety.

When the e-mails were stolen or leaked from the University of East Anglia, they revealed, among other things, the intent of IPCC authors to violate IPCC procedures. Pachauri first said that all was fine, then announced an investigation, and then cancelled it.

Now, while one of the favorite attacks on scientists questioning IPCC policy is that, somehow, they obtain funding from the U.S. government or Oil Interests or some such thing, we see, ironically, that the chairman of the IPCC himself showed grotesque misjudgment in creating a significant conflict of interest for himself:

The whole situation became more bizarre when it emerged from the investigations of Richard North that Pachauri's Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) has built a large research effort on Himalayan glaciers on the back of the error in the IPCC report. TERI is also the beneficiary of considerable sums from companies with a financial interest in climate policy, resulting from payments for Pachauri's advice or authority. Astoundingly, it appears that Pachauri has not broken any rules for the simple reason that there is no code of conduct governing conflicts of interest for IPCC participants and leaders.

Read that again.

The Chairman of the IPCC, received "considerable sums from companies with a financial interest in climate policy".

Really.

Now.

Here's the very hard part for conservatives.  Just because the IPCC has insufficient safeguards to prevent politicization of their findings and has no code of conduct, doesn't mean that the effort to understand human impact on climate should be ignored.

I think it is illustrative to consider the early failings of human understanding to understand the problem.

There was a time when people believed the earth was flat.  They were convinced of it.  And, as we now know, eventually, science made it clear that the earth was not flat, that it was not stationary, and that it revolved around the sun (not the other way around).

I would prefer to have been one of those open to people like Galileo who suggested I might want to question my assumptions

However - on the other hand, when people like Galileo made their original "fanastic" pronouncements, it was a challenge to the entrenched and established scientific community, such as it was at the time.

When Charles Darwin first published his "Origin of the Species" he was also initially derided by much of the "established" scientic community.

The point?

That we MUST be open to understanding and question, and at the same time, we must be cautious in the face of a politicized multinational organization with it's own interests to not put our own welfare at risk simply to "follow the crowd".

Those who dismiss the mistakes of the IPCC scientists and find no concern with Phil Jones' willingess to destroy and hide information, differ very little from those who refused to consider the world might not be flat.

But so do those who refuse to consider the possibility that climate change may be impacted by humans with a negative consequence to our own welfare.

I prefer a leader like Stephen Harper who says, "Yes, but..."

Right now, he IS the leader of the free world, and I'll sleep comfortable knowing that his response is not blind acceptance or refusal of suggestions regarding climate change.