Summer of disaster 'not climate change': Rajendra Pachauri

CYCLONE Yasi and the Brisbane floods could not be directly linked to man-made climate change, the world's leading climate change authority said yesterday.

Rajendra Pachauri

SPECIFIC natural disasters such as Cyclone Yasi and the Brisbane floods could not be directly linked to man-made climate change, the world's leading climate change authority said yesterday.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change chairman Rajendra Pachauri said the general observation that climate change was bringing about an increase in extreme weather events was valid but scientists needed to provide much finer detail.

"Frankly, it is difficult to take a season or two and come up with any conclusions on those on a scientific basis," Dr Pachauri said.

"What we can say very clearly is the aggregate impact of climate change on all these events, which are taking place at much higher frequency and intensity all over the world.

"On that there is very little doubt; the scientific evidence is very, very strong. But what happens in Queensland or what happens in Russia or for that matter the floods in the Mississippi River right now, whether there is a link between those and climate change is very difficult to establish. So I don't think anyone can make a categorical statement on that."

Dr Pachauri's comments contradict assertions by Greens leader Bob Brown in the wake of the floods that the coal industry was to blame because the sector's contribution to global warming was responsible for the extreme weather conditions.

Scientists had concluded that the floods were caused by record high temperatures in the oceans around Australia, Senator Brown said at the time.

As experts from around the world meet on the Gold Coast this week to finalise a special report on global warming and extreme weather events, which is due out in November, Dr Pachauri admitted the IPCC had been damaged by recent controversies over leaked emails and its use of poor-quality research.

But he said the organisation welcomed debate and was not guilty of overstating its case.

Dr Pachauri said he was pessimistic about the possibility of a breakthrough in negotiations for a global deal on action on climate change in South Africa in December and said the hard-fought politics on climate change in Australia mirrored what was happening around the world, particularly in the US.

But when it came to commenting on the state of Australian politics and climate change, Dr Pachauri played a straight bat literally.

Anticipating questions about whether Australia was doing enough, he said he had rehearsed his lines.

"Australia is not doing enough in cricket. About climate change, I just can't say."

He said the IPCC was "doing what we can" in relation to concerns about its reputation.

"We . . . are focused on producing the best possible reports that we can. It is really up to governments to take actions that are in their best interests and society at large."

Asked whether the IPCC had suffered as a result of overstating the climate change case, Dr Pachauri said: "There are people who say the opposite, as well.

"We welcome debate, we welcome discussion on all our findings, but a number of people also express the opinion the IPCC has understated the case and we expect in the fifth assessment report we will be able to provide a lot more knowledge by which, hopefully, the debate can become a little more focused," he said.

Dr Pachauri said he believed there would always be politicisation of the IPCC findings because they had a profound impact on human society and governments.

"To expect there would be no politics around the findings of our reports would be unrealistic," he said.

"But we certainly welcome scientific debate because science only thrives on debate.

"If you shut yourself off from questioning and doubt and discourse on whatever science is doing, you are limiting the ability and the power of science to provide solutions.

"We function by involving the best scientists from all over the world."

He said 60 per cent of the scientists contributing to the fifth assessment had not had anything to do with the IPCC before.

"It is not a closed system. We involve and bring in the very best expertise we can . . . from all over the world.

"Every step is subject to expert review but this is a message that

we have not been able to get out effectively and this has been a shortcoming.

"Our ability to communicate what we are doing has clearly not been adequate and we are now taking the steps to bring about adequate capacity within the IPCC," he said.