IAC review of the IPCC

Hello Readers,

As I indicated in my previous post, I wanted to read the full IAC review of the IPCC before offering any real commentary on their findings. For the most part, the results of the review were not particular surprising. The IAC commented on the need for significant improvements to the IPCC's communications strategies (e.g. responding to errors and criticisms in the media). It explained the deficiencies that resulted from the different working groups interpreting the uncertainty guidelines differently, and made recommendations to expedite the review processes.

The main point that I found surprising -after finishing a year-long excursion into the science of climate change- was the proportion of non-peer-reviewed literature used in the assessments.

"An analysis of the 14,000 references cited in the Third Assessment Report found that peer-reviewed journal articles comprised 84 percent of references in Working Group I, but only 59 percent of references in Working Group II and 36 percent of references in Working Group III (Bjurström and Polk, 2010)."

The IAC review explains that this has a lot to do with the less heavily researched fields assessed in Working Groups II & III (i.e. "impacts of climate change and strategies for adaptation" and "mitigation options" respectively) that depend on social sciences and predicting human responses in the future. Whereas, Working Group I, which focuses more on physical sciences, relies more heavily on observations and global models.

Despite such explanations, the distinction between the various amounts of 'gray literature' in the Working Groups is an important issue, and the IAC's recommendation for more clarity surrounding its use should not go unheeded. While the exclusive use of peer-reviewed articles would eliminate useful information sources (e.g. government and farming record databases), the apparent opaqueness of the use of gray literature in the IPCC assessments (as highlighted by the IAC) seems unacceptable. For a comparison, I cannot imagine a doctoral candidate being allowed to cite so much gray literature in a thesis (especially without any accompanying justification!), so why should the IPCC take such liberties?

Well, that's all that I have to say about the IAC review. In case you are interested: the IAC report on IPCC processes and procedures is intended to inform discussions at the 32nd session of the IPCC Plenary, which will be held in South Korea in October 2010, and work on the fifth assessment and subsequent assessments.

Sincerely,
Sean Diamond