The IPCC - how it works - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

daisym · #1 (**permalink**) 11-14-2007

Here is an extract from an article by prof Martin Perry, co chair of the IPCC working group II.

A lot is said about 'political interference - I guess its abit hard to be absolutely sure that there is nothing, however it seems most likely that huge numbers of professional scientists aren't going to put their scientific integrity on the line too much, if its most likely that it would be found out.

I do think a lot of the signs we are seeing are the result of global warming - and anthropogenic global warming at that, however I can't be sure - apart fromt he fact I'm no scientist and can't make informed comment, there's also the fact that I have studied economic history, and it appears that some of what we are seeing now is not that unusual over a longer cycle - however not all of it. And although cause and effect may not be hard and fast yet - the relationship between human behaviours, including land clearing and industralisation, increased CO2 and warming seem to have some significance.

In any case - here is an excerpt from Prof Perry's article - the full article is here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7082088.stm

Quote:

Is there room for political interference here? In the 20 years that I have been a scientist with the IPCC, I have not encountered a government trying at this stage to influence the assessment beyond making suggestions that would genuinely help its remit or focus.

There is then a call for authors who may be nominated by any government or organisation (research institutions, universities, businesses and NGOs).

The co-chairs and working group bureaux scan the research records of the nominees and seek the best match between available skills and the expertise needed to cover the fields of the assessment.

Is this another area open to political interference? I genuinely think we choose the best available, and without political motive.

From more than 4,000 nominated scientists, about 600 were chosen as authors in the Fourth Assessment; and all those not chosen are automatically included amongst reviewers of the drafts.

Balance and focus

Each chapter writing team of about 20 scientists works for two years reviewing the available scientific literature, boiling down new knowledge and then agreeing the key conclusions.

They need to reach a consensus but, where there is a difference of views in the literature over a particular issue (and there frequently is), then it is specifically the task of the authors to report these differences.

Several thousand scientists are asked to review the authors' drafts, at two different stages; and there are also two stages of review by governments.

The purpose of the review is to ensure that the assessments are a fair reflection of the views of the whole scientific community, not just of the authors themselves. Each chapter has two review editors to ensure that reviews are considered and responded to appropriately.

moon · #2 (**permalink**) 11-17-2007

Nice one, daisy. Stay warm in the woods.

hairballxavier · #3 (**permalink**) 11-26-2007

The only thing the scientists have come to a consensus about is that more scientific reasearch, studies and analysis needs to be done.

Which is understandable if they want to stay employed.

PaleoRepublican · #4 (**permalink**) 12-06-2007

"The IPCC - how it works."

Cherry pick, filter data, invent data, ignore data, pretend climate models work, lie, deceive, goto 10.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode