Re: [asa] ‘Corruption of Science’ (UN IPCC Summary For Policymakers)

On Feb 2, 2007, at 10:47 AM, Janice Matchett wrote:

> UN IPCC Summary For Policymakers ‘Corruption of Science’
>
> W*shington – Sen. James Inhofe, (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the
> Environment & Public Works Committee, today commented on the UN
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fourth
> Assessment Summary for Policymakers.
>
> "This is a political document, not a scientific report, and it is a
> shining example of the corruption of science for political gain.
> The media has failed to report that the IPCC Summary for
> Policymakers was not approved by scientists but by UN political
> delegates and bureaucrats," S*nator Inhofe said. The IPCC is only
> releasing the Summary for Policymakers today, not the actual
> scientific report which is not due out until May 2007.

Let's take a look at the real process, shall we?

First, some definitions.

> “acceptance” of IPCC Reports at a Session of the Working Group or
> Panel signifies that the material has not
> been subject to line by line discussion and agreement, but
> nevertheless presents a comprehensive, objective and
> balanced view of the subject matter.
> “adoption” of IPCC Reports is a process of endorsement section by
> section (and not line by line) used for the
> longer report of the Synthesis Report as described in section 4.3
> and for Overview Chapters of Methodology
> Reports
> “approval” of IPCC Summaries for Policymakers signifies that the
> material has been subjected to detailed, line
> by line discussion and agreement.

Now the process:

> It may be recalled that the IPCC, which has been established
> jointly by the World Meteorological
> Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme
> (UNEP), agreed that its Fourth
> Assessment Report would be completed in 2007 and consist of three
> working group contributions and a
> Synthesis Report. The contribution of Working Group I to the AR4
> will be considered at the 10th Session of
> Working Group I of the IPCC, which will be held in Paris, France,
> from 29 January to 1 February 2007.
>
> Two previous drafts of this Report have been subject to scientific
> and technical reviews by experts and
> Governments, as called for in the IPCC Procedures for the
> Preparation, Review, Acceptance, Adoption,
> Approval and Publication of the IPCC Reports (hereinafter referred
> to as the IPCC Procedures; see the
> website www.ipcc.ch for a copy). The drafts have been revised after
> each of these two reviews, taking into
> account the comments received, and this process has produced the
> enclosed final draft.
>
> In accordance with IPCC procedures, the final draft Summary for
> Policymakers (SPM) will be submitted for
> line-by-line approval by Working Group I of the IPCC at its 10th
> Session and the full final draft Report will
> be submitted for acceptance by the Working Group at that time. The
> IPCC Procedures stipulate that approval
> of the draft SPM by the Working Group signifies that the SPM is
> consistent with the factual material
> contained in the underlying full Report. Coordinating Lead Authors
> and other selected Lead Authors will be
> present at the Session to assist in ensuring consistency with the
> underlying assessment. The approved SPM
> and the accepted underlying full Report will be submitted to the
> IPCC at its Twenty-sixth Session (Bangkok,
> 4 May 2007) for acceptance. [emphasis mine]

Some more detail:

> The Synthesis Report will synthesise and integrate materials
> contained within the Assessment Reports and
> Special Reports and should be written in a non-technical style
> suitable for policymakers and address a broad
> range of policy-relevant but policy-neutral questions approved by
> the Panel. The Synthesis Report is composed
> of two sections as follows: (a) a Summary for Policymakers and (b)
> a longer report. The IPCC Chair will lead a
> writing team whose composition is agreed by the Bureau, noting the
> need to aim for a range of views, expertise
> and geographical representation. An approval and adoption procedure
> will allow Sessions of the Panel to
> approve the SPM line by line and to ensure that the SPM and the
> longer report of the Synthesis Report are
> consistent, and the Synthesis Report is consistent with the
> underlying Assessment Reports and Special Reports
> from which the information has been synthesised and integrated.
> This approach will take 5-7 working days of a
> Session of the Panel.

> Step 1: The longer report (30-50 pages) and the SPM (5-10 pages) of
> the Synthesis Report are prepared by the
> writing team.

> Step 2: The longer report and the SPM of the Synthesis Report
> undergo simultaneous expert/government review.

> Step 3: The longer report and the SPM of the Synthesis Report are
> then revised by Lead Authors, with the
> assistance of the Review Editors.

> Step 4: The revised drafts of the longer report and the SPM of the
> Synthesis Report are submitted to
> Governments and participating organisations eight weeks before the
> Session of the Panel.

> Step 5: The longer report and the SPM of the Synthesis Report are
> both tabled for discussion in the Session of
> the Panel:
> · The Session of the Panel will first provisionally approve the
> SPM line by line.
> · The Session of the Panel will review and adopt the longer report
> of the Synthesis Report, section by section,
> i.e. roughly one page or less at a time. The review and adoption
> process for the longer report of the Synthesis
> Report should be accomplished in the following manner:
> - When changes in the longer report of the Synthesis Report are
> required either to conform it to the
> SPM or to ensure consistency with the underlying Assessment
> Reports, the Panel and authors will
> note where changes are required in the longer report of the
> Synthesis Report to ensure consistency
> in tone and content. The authors of the longer report of the
> Synthesis Report will then make changes
> in the longer report of the Synthesis Report. Those Bureau members
> who are not authors will act as
> Review Editors to ensure that these documents are consistent and
> follow the directions of the
> Session of the Panel
> - The longer report of the Synthesis Report is then brought back to
> the Session of the Panel for the
> review and adoption of the revised sections, section by section. If
> inconsistencies are still identified
> by the Panel, the longer report of the Synthesis Report is further
> refined by the Authors with the
> Assistance of the Review Editors for review and adoption by the
> Panel. This process is conducted
> section by section, not line by line.
> · The final text of the longer report of the Synthesis Report will
> be adopted and the SPM approved by the
> Session of the Panel.

What does it mean? It means that the "actual scientific report" as
you call it has already been formally accepted. The SPM was line-for-
line approved to the following end:

> The IPCC Procedures stipulate that approval
> of the draft SPM by the Working Group signifies that the SPM is
> consistent with the factual material
> contained in the underlying full Report.

This means what you see now has been voted on by consensus of all the
member governments as line-for-line consistent with the "actual
scientific report". As such, all those governments -- including the
U.S. -- now "own" the conclusion therein and in detail. Your
complaint is that you haven't seen the full report yet, not that is
hasn't already been accepted contemporaneously with the released SPM.
Sen. Inhofe's distinction that the SPM is political but the full
report is scientific is completely bogus. Both reports are joined at
the hip.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Feb 3 06:56:01 2007