It took decades of scientific study for a consensus that climate change caused by humans is threatening life as we know it. Now, climate change skeptics are effectively questioning the credibility of this consensus by finding fault with a report by the U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC must respond more proactively to head off a crisis and restore confidence in its process and findings.

In case you have missed the saga, the February 15, 2010, Washington Post story details some of the issues. Reporters David A. Fahrenthold and Juliet Eilperin explain that errors in the 2007 report by the IPCC stating “warming of the climate system is unequivocal,” and that “humans are causing it” have led the report’s conclusions open for attack. The Post story lists some of the following examples:

The report said the huge glaciers in the Himalayan mountains might disappear by 2035. The figure was supposed to be 2050. And even at that later time, some scientists think it will take longer for the enormous glaciers to melt. See IPCC statement on this error, issued on January 20, 2010.

The report links high insurance payouts to rising temperatures. Critics contend other factors are driving this trend. On this point, the IPCC has defended its conclusions. See its January 25, 2010, statement.

The report misstates the percent of the Netherlands that lies below sea level.

While these points don’t in anyway change the validity of the findings, they are raising questions about fact-checking and the process of reporting this data.

For the IPCC, which is volunteer-run largely by scientists, it needs to place more emphasis on its communications program. When asked by the Post reporters to comment, it “did not respond.” In crisis communications, “no comment” can be deadly.

What can the IPCC do to quickly restore confidence in its work? For starters, it needs to recognize it is in a crisis and that in a crisis an organization must respond quickly, strategically and effectively. Here are some unsolicited steps the IPCC should consider:

1. Accept blame for any and all errors in the report, not just ones that are being questioned now. Report any other errors that may have surfaced but have yet to come into question. This should be made public and soon.

2. Establish a more rigorous set of procedures to ensure the integrity of all information released by the IPCC. The journal Nature published recommendations by a number of scientists to improve the accuracy of future documents.

3. Appoint one or more spokespeople who are equipped and informed to respond to questions about the report and the process. Go on the offensive by meeting with leading environmental journalists, government leaders and other opinion leaders to attest to the reliability of the findings of the report and explain steps to ensure greater reliability for future research findings. This should be part of a proactive communications outreach effort.

4. Hold another climate change summit at the U.N. to try and regain momentum following the less than desired results in Copenhagen.

5. Invite some of the leading climate skeptics to a series of televised public debates with some of the scientists representing the IPCC report.

Some might argue against a debate, thinking it will just give skeptics a greater forum, casting even more doubt and delaying legislative action. However, public opinion about the role of humans in causing climate change and its seriousness has dropped alarmingly, as reported by the Pew Research Center in its September 2009 research. We are getting close to half of Americans not believing humans are the reason for climate change. Without public support, it is unlikely we will see broad legislative action to address this issue.