Unlike the first round, which was split half and half between upholders of the climate faith and dissenters, this session looks to be much more one-sided, and therefore probably not so interesting.
Panel 1, at 9.30am:
- Sir Peter Williams, Royal Society
- Dr. Emily Shuckburgh, Royal Meteorological Society
Panel 2, at 10.30am:
- Guy Newey, Policy Exchange
- Jonathan Grant, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC)
- James Painter, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, University of Oxford
The session explores a range of issues, including:
- Attribution of the cause of climate change;
- IPCC communication, media coverage and controversies;
- Business and policy decisions in the face of uncertainty; and
- National and international policy considerations.
The list of issues is intriguing, since it goes beyond the original remit of the review, which was mainly focused on the science and did not mention media communications (though policy was included).
The first two are scientists, though Emily Shuckburgh has also done some work on public opinion, co-authoring a report that found decreasing concern about climate change and decreasing trust. They will presumably follow the line set out in the written submissions from their organisations. The RS one is very dull, churning out all the key words “unequivocal”, “robust”, “wealth of evidence”. The RMetS submission is equally bland.
James Painter’s written submission referred to his document “Climate Change in the Media: Reporting Risk and Uncertainty”, about the interaction between uncertainty and policy.
Simon Carr at Guido Fawkes picks up on the Lilley/Shuckburgh and Lilley/Yeo spats.
BBC News also reports on this – MPs Tim Yeo and Peter Lilley in climate committee clash.
BBC iplayer now has the recording of the session, though this only covers the first 2 hours.
The whole recording is here.