IPCC Summary for Policymakers

The Summary for policymakers (SPM) is a summary of the IPCC reports intended to aid policymakers. The content is determined by the scientists, but the form is approved line by line by governments. ["The SPM was approved line by line by governments in a major meeting, which took place over four days in Shanghai, China, in January 2001. The argument here is that the scientists determine what can said, but the governments determine how it can best be said. Negotiations occur over wording to ensure accuracy, balance, clarity of message, and relevance to understanding and policy. In Shanghai, there were about 100 countries represented by delegations, perhaps 10 non-governmental organizations, and about 42 scientists." [http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/GLOB_CHANGE/ipcc2001.html The IPCC Assessment of Global Warming 2001] ] Negotiations occur over wording to ensure accuracy, balance, clarity of message, and relevance to understanding and policy.

Process

The IPCC is divided into 3 "Working Groups" (WG) covering a section of the climate change topic:
* Working Group I (WGI): The Physical Science Basis.
* Working Group II (WGII): Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability
* Working Group III (WGIII): Mitigation of Climate Change

During about 5 years, each Working Group prepares a full "assessment report" by collating all the available research results.

Before the end of this period, a selection of about 50 scientists within each Working Groups produces a first draft "Summary for policymakers" (SPM) summarizing its section of the full assessment report. This first draft SPM is sent for comments to the participating government. Comments are taken into account in a seccond draft prepared by the scientists. When the full assessment report is finalized, each second draft SPM is then reviewed during a four days plenary session comprising government delegations and observer organizations [ [http://www.ipcc.ch/meet/session26/draftreport26.pdf List of organizations admitted to the IPCC plenary sessions] ] . Each reviewing session is chaired by the scientists chairing the Working Group, surrounded by a panel of scientists. The government delegations usually count one to six delegates, comprising generally a mix of national experts (some of which are part of the IPCC) and a few diplomats or other non-scientist civil servants.

The objective of the review session is to improve the form of the SPM, which must remain faithful to the scientific content of the full assessment report. This process also results in some form of endorsement by the participating governments.

For the Fourth Assessment SPMs, each review lasted three days. The beginning of the first day was open to journalists and started with introductory speeches (from the IPCC President, local politicians...). Then each sentence of the draft SPM, displayed on a giant screen, was discussed at length by the delegates and often ended up completely rewritten. Some paragraphs were removed and others are added, under the full control of the Chair and its panel of scientist who ensured that every sentence strictly conforms to the content of the full assessment. When the discussion on a sentence lasted too long, a subgroup chaired by a scientist was formed to craft aside a revised text for later submission to the plenary. Generally the process was very slow at the beginning: in some cases, as little as a few paragraphs were reviewed at the end of the first day. The review generally ended late in the night of the third day - sometimes even in the next morning. On the fourth day, the reviewed SPM was released during a closing session open to journalists.

Criticism of the summary

Several authors, including some scientists whose work was cited in the Technical Summary, claim that the SPM doesn't represent the science correctly.

PM downplays the seriousness of the situation

Kevin E. Trenberth, lead author of the 2001 IPCC Scientific Assessment of Climate Change, wrote:

Scientists determine what can said, but the governments determine how it can best be said. ... The IPCC process is dependent on the good will of the participants in producing a balanced assessment. However, in Shanghai, it appeared that there were attempts to blunt, and perhaps obfuscate, the messages in the report. ... In spite of these trials and tribulations, the result is a reasonably balanced consensus summary. ... [ [http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/GLOB_CHANGE/ipcc2001.html The IPCC Assessment of Global Warming 2001] ]

PM overstates the case for anthropogenic global warming

Fred Singer, a prominent climate change skeptic, wrote:

The Science and Environmental Policy Project conducted a survey of IPCC scientific contributors and reviewers; we found that about half did not support the Policymakers' Summary. Parallel surveys by the Gallup organization and even by Greenpeace International produced similar results. [ [http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/glwarm/hotair.html S. Fred Singer, Wall Street Journal, July 25, 1997] ]

However, Fred Singer's allegations about "surveys by the Gallup organization and by Greenpeace International" cannot be verified.

Richard Lindzen wrote:

The report is prefaced by a policymakers' summary written by the editor, Sir John Houghton, director of the United Kingdom Meteorological Office. His summary largely ignores the uncertainty in the report and attempts to present the expectation of substantial warming as firmly based science. [ [http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus] ]

References

External links

* [http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/005.htm SPM] for the TAR
* [http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/GLOB_CHANGE/ipcc2001.html Comments on the process] by Kevin E. Trenberth