[Coral-List] Climate Change perceptions
Albert Norström
albert at ecology.su.se
Mon Nov 2 15:37:23 EST 2009
In response to Gene's query,
Yes, the IPCC reports are subject to a quite substantial peer review
process. The following paragraphs summarize it neatly (cp:ed from the
Union of Concerned Scientists website)
"The IPCC’s technical reports derive their credibility principally
from an extensive, transparent, and iterative peer review process
that, as mentioned above, is considered far more exhaustive than that
associated with scientific journals. This is due to the number of
reviewers, the breadth of their disciplinary backgrounds and
scientific perspectives, and the inclusion of independent “review
editors” who certify that all comments have been fairly considered and
appropriately resolved by the authors. For example, see [2].
To be as inclusive and open as possible, a balanced review effectively
begins with the choice of lead authors. By intentionally including
authors who represent the full range of expert opinion, many areas of
disagreement can be worked out in discussions among the authors rather
than waiting until the document is sent out for review.
The first round of review is conducted by a large number of expert
reviewers—more than 2,500 for the entire AR4—who include scientists,
industry representatives, and NGO experts with a wide range of
perspectives. Lead authors are required to consider all comments and
incorporate those with scientific merit—a process overseen by review
editors (two per chapter) who have expertise in the specific topic
covered by a given chapter. All review comments are archived together
with the authors’ responses and/or resulting actions, and are
available upon request.
If major differences emerge, lead authors are encouraged to organize a
meeting with both the contributing authors and review editors to
discuss and resolve the differences. The goal is not to reach a
potentially “watered-down” compromise that conceals scientific
uncertainties or real differences in expert opinion, but to produce a
report of the highest scientific integrity, reflecting the state of
our understanding fairly and adequately.
The revised draft is then sent back to the expert reviewers and also
to government representatives for the so-called government review
stage. Each government is entitled to organize any type of review
process it deems appropriate. The U.S. government, for example, seeks
comments from agencies, scientific experts, and the general public
(through a notice in the Federal Register) as the starting point for
its comments. Again, lead authors prepare revisions in response to
scientifically valid comments, and encourage reviewers and other
experts to resolve any remaining major differences by communicating
directly. The resulting document is then submitted to the working
group’s plenary session for consideration and acceptance."
All the best,
Albert
On 2 nov 2009, at 18.37, Eugene Shinn wrote:
> Does anyone know if the IPCC reports were peer reviewed? and if so by
> whom? Gene
> --
>
>
> No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS)
> ------------------------------------
> -----------------------------------
> E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor
> University of South Florida
> Marine Science Center (room 204)
> 140 Seventh Avenue South
> St. Petersburg, FL 33701
> <eshinn at marine.usf.edu>
> Tel 727 553-1158----------------------------------
> -----------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>
> Albert Norström
> PhD Student
> Dept. Systems Ecology
> Natural Resource Management Group
> Stockholm University
>
> Kräftriket 9A
> 104 05 Stockholm
> Sweden
>
> Email: <mailto:albert at ecology.su.se>albert at ecology.su.se
>
> Personal page: <http://www.ecology.su.se/staff/personal.asp?id=119>http://www.ecology.su.se/staff/personal.asp?id=119
>
More information about the Coral-List
mailing list