Friday, February 8, 2013

LaFramboise "IPCC review" appendix Chapter 5 #2

This is a second appendix to supplement {DL's chapter #5} 
I've added these press releases to support the contention that though the IPCC (like every other major human undertaking) may not be 100% perfect, it is still a solid process who's scientific product can be trusted.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

IPCC completes review of processes and procedures
27 June 2012

Over the past two years, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) undertook a complete review of its processes and procedures – effectively the IPCC’s “constitution”. Decisions on governance and management, conflict of interest, and procedures were taken by a meeting of the Panel, the IPCC’s governing body, at its 35th session in Geneva on 6-9 June 2012. The Panel also adopted a communications strategy.

The decisions taken in Geneva complete the process of implementation of a set of recommendations issued in August 2010 by the InterAcademy Council (IAC), the group created by the world's science academies to provide advice to international bodies. United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and IPCC Chair Rajendra Pachauri jointly asked the IAC to undertake an independent review of IPCC processes and procedures in March 2010. The decision documents are posted on the IPCC website .

The decisions taken in Geneva in June include:
  • adoption of a communications strategy governing how the IPCC communicates with policy-
    makers, other stakeholders and the media, based on guidance agreed by the IPCC at its 33rd
    session in Abu Dhabi in May 2011;
  • further steps to implement the Conflict of Interest policy approved in Abu Dhabi and at the 34th
    session of the IPCC in Kampala in November 2011;
  • revisions to procedures for electing the IPCC’s Bureau – the Chair, IPCC Vice-Chairs, Co-
    Chairs of the Working Groups and the Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (TFI) and the Vice-Chairs of the Working Groups – including strengthening the representation of Southwest Pacific states;
  • further clarification of the functions of the IPCC Secretariat and of the Technical Support Units (TSUs) that support the Working Groups, TFI and Synthesis Report, and
  • approval of mostly editorial revisions to procedures agreed in Kampala.
“These latest changes further strengthen IPCC operations as it prepares to release its Fifth Assessment Report in 2013 and 2014. With the completion of the review, the IPCC can now focus fully on its mandate to assess in a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of the risks of climate change, its potential impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation,” IPCC Chair Rajendra Pachauri said.

The IPCC’s 32nd session in Busan, Republic of Korea, in October 2010, adopted most of the IAC recommendations, and set up Task Groups to work on their implementation. The bulk of the work was completed for approval at the IPCC’s 33rd and 34th sessions. Decisions at these meetings covered a strengthening of the IPCC procedures including the review process for IPCC reports, the use of non- peer-reviewed literature, the selection of authors, and the treatment of uncertainty. Other decisions involved the creation of an Executive Committee to strengthen IPCC governance between Panel sessions, and the limitation of the term of office of the Chair, IPCC Vice-Chairs and Co-Chairs to one term – usually the timeframe of one assessment. 
  • IPCC Secretariat

    c/o WMO · 7 bis, Avenue de la Paix · C.P: 2300 · CH-1211 Geneva 2 · Switzerland
    telephone +41 22 730 8208 / 54 / 84 · fax +41 22 730 8025 / 13 · email ·
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

IPCC statement on New Scientist article
24 June 2012

In response to an article published in the online edition of the New Scientist on 18 June 2012, corrected on 19 June, and further corrected on 22 June, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states:
  • The IPCC has always sought, among other considerations, to achieve geographical representation, including representation from developing countries, in the selection of authors for its reports. This is because the IPCC wants its assessments to reflect a range of scientific, technical and socio-economic views and expertise, and not to be subject to any one perspective. There has never been any question, nor is there now, of imposing geographical or gender quotas on authors – the scientific experts who volunteer to work on its reports.

  • At a meeting in Geneva on 6-9 June 2012 the Panel revised the rules for the election of the IPCC Bureau – the elected officials comprising the IPCC Chair, IPCC Vice-Chairs, Working Group and Task Force Co-Chairs and Working Group Vice-Chairs. The Bureau is the main advisory body that provides guidance on scientific and technical aspects of its work and is authorized to take certain decisions. Members of the Bureau are chosen on the basis of their scientific qualifications. The composition of the Bureau has in addition always represented the different regions of the world, in common with the practice of many United Nations organizations regarding their executive bodies. IPCC Bureau members are grouped according to the six regions of the World Meteorological Organization. At its meeting in Geneva, the Panel amended the election rules to strengthen the representation of Southwest Pacific states in the IPCC Bureau, raising total membership of the IPCC Bureau to 31, in order to ensure that each region is represented in each Working Group and in the Executive Committee.

  • The IPCC has always recognized that non-peer reviewed literature, such as reports from governments and industry, or national statistics, can be crucial for the IPCC’s assessments. The appropriate use of such literature expands the breadth and depth of the assessment by including relevant information. At its previous meeting in Kampala in November 2011, the Panel agreed to strengthen the rules governing the use of literature from all sources. The procedures to validate sources of information from non-peer reviewed literature, and to ensure its quality, were reaffirmed. The procedures specify that the use of non-peer reviewed literature brings with it an extra responsibility for the author teams. IPCC writing teams were explicitly required to critically assess and to review the quality and validity of all cited literature. As in the past, copies of cited information that is not publicly or commercially available must be held, preferably electronically, in order to be made available to reviewers upon request during the review of IPCC draft reports. The Panel did not discuss non-peer reviewed literature at its latest meeting in Geneva.

    The changes made in Geneva and in Kampala represent a strengthening of the IPCC’s operations to ensure the IPCC can produce its policy-neutral assessments of climate science more effectively.

    The procedures for selecting authors and drafting reports can be found in Appendix A to the IPCC’s Procedures; Annex 2 to Appendix A provides detailed guidance on the use of non-peer reviewed literature. The procedures for electing the Bureau are laid out in Appendix C. This material is all available on the IPCC’s website, .

    IPCC Secretariat

    c/o WMO · 7 bis, Avenue de la Paix · C.P: 2300 · CH-1211 Geneva 2 · Switzerland
    telephone +41 22 730 8208 / 54 / 84 · fax +41 22 730 8025 / 13 · email · 

No comments: