Who is attending the Stockholm IPCC meeting?

The IPCC plenary meeting IPCC-36 at which the final wording of the AR5 WG1 SPM will be agreed is now underway in Stockholm.  The agenda is here and the IPCC has issued a press release giving more information about the meeting.  Climate scientists and government environment representatives have flown in from all over the world to share their concern over how man’s activities, such as flying, are destroying the planet. The meeting is taking place in a building called The Brewery (cue obvious jokes) and delegates are staying at a variety of 5-star or 4-star hotels for around £150 a night. Who is paying for all this? Taxpayers presumably.

An interesting question arose on twitter on Saturday, in discussions between Bishop Hill, Barry Woods and Mat Collins. Who, exactly, is attending this meeting?  The meeting will approve the SPM, after “subjecting it to line-by-line scrutiny”. But who is doing the scrutinising? Who takes the decisions if there are disagreements? Given that this is where the final wording of the document that goes out to policymakers is agreed, these seem to be fairly important questions. Is there a list of attendees?

Here are two relevant recent tweets:


Government officials will outnumber scientists 5-1 at meeting in Stockholm this week. Summary For Policymakers or By Policymakers?


Key thing to remember about process: the scientists have the last word on what’s written in the report summary, not the governments.

4 thoughts on “Who is attending the Stockholm IPCC meeting?

  1. Another tweet, from a climate scientist at the meeting:

    Mat Collins ‏@mat_collins
    We are not allowed to tweet anything of substance. I can only perhaps say that progress is slow.

  2. The more one reads of the IPCC’s documentation and practices, the more one realizes just how UN-transparent this whole process really is!

    As I had noted on my own blog earlier this month:

    an unknown number of unnamed “Government Representatives” will gather – along with an unknown number of unnamed “scientists” and an unknown number of unnamed representatives of unnamed “International and other Organizations”, designated as “Observers” – in Stockholm, Sweden.

    They will be participating in the behind-closed-doors 12th Session of Working Group I (WGI-12).

    When the secretariat eventually gets around to posting the “Draft Report of the 36th Session of the IPCC” , we should learn the number of people in attendance at the “session”.

    However, if the report of the Session at which the SRREN (aka Edenhoffer & Teske’s baby) SPM was “approved” [by WGIII] and “accepted” by the IPCC plenary is anything to go by**, then I suspect we may well eventually learn that there were far fewer nations participating in the “approval” process than might meet the eye in any press releases and media reports.

    ** As I had noted a few years ago, contra the Guardian‘s Damian Carrington (and IPCC-nik Richard Klein), there were only 188 names in 91 “national delegations” – i.e. less than 50% of governments – who participated in the “line by line” approval of the SPM of the SRREN.

    Furthermore, there is no indication of which “national delegations” were actually present on each day of the session during which these deliberations transpired.

    That only 32 governments submitted comments on the “Final Draft Summary for Policymakers” of WGI’s report now under review in Stockholm is also somewhat telling, don’t you think?!

  3. If the changes in climate is what the doomsayers of the UN claims , why the closed doors ? And why are a majority of political broilers are editing a climate report ?

    It confirms that something is wrong in the art of Climate Science these days.

    How on earth are we supposed to belive anything from IPCC , Greenpeace and WWF after all these stunts ? It seems more like a chaotic hippie movement than science.
    There has been too much nonsense – and everything seems to end up in some crazy support of the IPCC climate hypotesis.

    And worst of alll , these playboys suggest a cost of this to US$ 89 trillion and US$ 4.1 trillion for some exotic climate gimmicks – and rounding it off with a little yearly fee of US$100 billion.

    The whole ting speaks for itself !

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s