Aclimateofconflict.docVIP

A climate of conflict 气候之争 The world’s climate experts must work harder to avoid conflicts of interest 全球的气候专家们必须要竭尽全力以避免利益之争 Jun 23rd 2011 | from the print edition | International PANELS of experts assessing scientific investigations tend to be messy affairs, particularly when their customers are governments. People with expertise in one field, such as renewable energy, may have a bias towards it. Summaries of their work are the result of political negotiations. And findings are further boiled down in an attempt to win media coverage. 那些评估科学考察的专家的有代表性的调查往往成了棘手的事务，尤其是当他们的客户是政府时更是如此。在某个领域，如可再生能源方面拥有专业知识的人或许对此有侧重。他们的工作总结就是政治谈判的结果。而且调查的结果被进一步归结为试图获得（赢得）媒体报道。 Much of this can be seen in a new “special report” on renewable energy by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC , which was released last week. Possible conflicts of interest, revealed by Steve McIntyre, a blogger, have led to another controversy about the panel—only 18 months after its embarrassment over an incorrect claim about the imminent demise of the Himalayas’ glaciers. 从新的有关可再生能源的“特别报告”[1]中就可以看到以上的大部分情况，该报告是在上周由政府间气候变化专门委员会（IPCC，以下简称气候委员会）发布的。一个叫史帝夫．麦因特（Steve McIntyre）的博客透露，可能的利益冲突已经导致（引发）了对调查的又一场争议——这距离上次关于喜马拉雅山冰川即将消失的错误言论仅有18个月的时间[2]。 For a start, the press release about the report was misleading. “Close to 80% of the world’s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies, a new report shows,” it claims. In fact, the report merely discusses the assumptions needed to produce this outcome, one of the more extreme scenarios the IPCC looked at. 首先，新闻机构发布的这个报道就有误导性。它声称“一个新的报告显示，如果在正确且有效的公共政策支持下，在本世纪中叶，可再生能源可以提供全球近80%的能源供应”。事实上，该报告仅仅讨论了能够出现这种结果的假设，气候委员会检查（或察看）的很极端的情况之一。 A poorly written press release might have caused less of a stir, were it not for the fact that Greenpeace had come up with the scenario. Its development was led by Sven Teske, director of the group’s renewable-energy campaign. He was also one of the 12 authors of the chapter