The House has voted to cut off $2.3 million in U.S expenditure contributing to the production of the IPCC Reports on climate change mitigation and adaptation. The easy interpretation of this choice is that this is another “Al Gore snub” (see my earlier posts on political ideology and the climate change debate). What is the social cost of cutting off the IPCC? Climate Bloggers will continue to blog, climate scientists will continue to publish. But, who is the “authority” with the ability and the credibility to aggregate up all of this dispersed, diverse information into an executive summary that my mother will sit down and read? I have had mixed feelings about the quality of the IPCC reports that focus on human impacts. The authors appear to be too aware that they were writing a document with political implications. Overall, I oppose the Republican cutoff of funds but it is a valid question to ask what is the IPCC’s core mission and is it optimized for achieving this goal?