Summary for policymakers
Encyclopedia
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. Negotiations occur over wording to ensure accuracy, balance, clarity of message, and relevance to understanding and policy.
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 Group 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 second 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. Each reviewing session is chaired by the scientists chairing the Working Group, surrounded by a panel of scientists. The government delegations usually consist of 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.
, lead author of the 2001 IPCC Scientific Assessment of Climate Change, wrote:
, a prominent climate change skeptic, wrote:
However, Fred Singer's allegations about "surveys by the Gallup organization and by Greenpeace International" cannot be verified.
Richard Lindzen
wrote:
Where relevant, charts and graphs in the 2007 SPM document include error bars which indicate the uncertainty in the climate science used to formulate the IPCC report.
. The IPCC process was supported by these academies:
Some IPCC authors have expressed their personal support for the process that produces the Summary for Policymakers document. Martin Parry, co-chair of the IPCC Working Group II Fourth Assessment Report
, has said:
IPCC author Terry Barker has commented on the IPCC process and Summary for Policymakers document:
to produce a report on climate change. The committee writing this report was asked, amongst other things, to comment on the IPCC Working Group I Third Assessment Report
and its Summary for Policymakers:
is a summary of the IPCC
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a scientific intergovernmental body which provides comprehensive assessments of current scientific, technical and socio-economic information worldwide about the risk of climate change caused by human activity, its potential environmental and...
reports intended to aid policymakers. The content is determined by the scientists, but the form is approved line by line by governments. 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 Group 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 second 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. Each reviewing session is chaired by the scientists chairing the Working Group, surrounded by a panel of scientists. The government delegations usually consist of 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.SPM downplays the seriousness of the situation
Kevin E. TrenberthKevin E. Trenberth
Kevin E. Trenberth is head of the Climate Analysis Section at the USA National Center for Atmospheric Research. He was a lead author of the 2001 and 2007 IPCC Scientific Assessment of Climate Change and serves on the Scientific Steering Group for the Climate Variability and Predictability program...
, 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. ...
SPM overstates the case for anthropogenic global warming
Fred SingerFred Singer
Siegfried Fred Singer is an Austrian-born American physicist and emeritus professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia...
, 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.
However, Fred Singer's allegations about "surveys by the Gallup organization and by Greenpeace International" cannot be verified.
Richard Lindzen
Richard Lindzen
Richard Siegmund Lindzen is an American atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen is known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than...
wrote:
The report is prefaced by a policymakers' summary written by the editor, Sir John HoughtonJohn T. HoughtonAs co-chair of the IPCC, he defends the IPCC process, in particular against charges of failure to consider non-CO2 explanations of climate change. In evidence to, the Select Committee on Science and Technology in 2000 he said:...
, 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.
Where relevant, charts and graphs in the 2007 SPM document include error bars which indicate the uncertainty in the climate science used to formulate the IPCC report.
Support for the IPCC process
The IPCC process has received widespread support and praise from major scientific bodies. In 2001, a joint statement on climate change was made by sixteen national academies of scienceNational academy
A national academy is an organizational body, usually operating with state financial support and approval, that co-ordinates scholarly research activities and standards for academic disciplines, most frequently in the sciences but also the humanities. Typically the country's learned societies in...
. The IPCC process was supported by these academies:
The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus.
Some IPCC authors have expressed their personal support for the process that produces the Summary for Policymakers document. Martin Parry, co-chair of the IPCC Working Group II Fourth Assessment Report
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report
Climate Change 2007, the Fourth Assessment Report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , is the fourth in a series of reports intended to assess scientific, technical and socio-economic information concerning climate change, its potential effects, and options for...
, has said:
The SPM is chewed over for some days (and sometimes nights) by the panel; and it is this process that has sometimes brought criticism from a few scientists who have questioned how much this government involvement alters the meaning of the scientists' conclusions.
I do not think it does; Plenary might alter some nuances, but the key conclusions of the assessments remain intact.
IPCC author Terry Barker has commented on the IPCC process and Summary for Policymakers document:
My impressions of the IPCC process is that it is an open, highly innovative and progressive means to address the issue, namely the organisation of the scientific policy-relevant advice to governments of an evolving, complex and highly contentious topic.[...]
My experience in the 2001 [IPCC] process was that political considerations inevitably play a role in the development of the SPM, since governments will not necessarily agree with the scientific consensus expressed in the initial drafts of the [Summary for Policymakers] SPM. Since there is always some uncertainty in the scientific findings, reasons can always be found to qualify or remove unpalatable conclusions. Whether the political considerations introduce a large gap between what the authors say in the Report and what appears in the SPM is a matter of opinion.
National Research Council Report
In 2001, the Bush Administration asked the National Research CouncilUnited States National Research Council
The National Research Council of the USA is the working arm of the United States National Academies, carrying out most of the studies done in their names.The National Academies include:* National Academy of Sciences...
to produce a report on climate change. The committee writing this report was asked, amongst other things, to comment on the IPCC Working Group I Third Assessment Report
IPCC Third Assessment Report
The IPCC Third Assessment Report, Climate Change 2001, is an assessment of available scientific and socio-economic information on climate change by the IPCC. The IPCC was established in 1988 by the United Nations Environment Programme and the UN's World Meteorological Organization ".....
and its Summary for Policymakers:
The committee finds that the full IPCC Working Group I (WGI) report is an admirable summary of research activities in climate science, and the full report is adequately summarized in the Technical Summary. The full WGI report and its Technical Summary are not specifically directed at policy. The Summary for Policymakers reflects less emphasis on communicating the basis for uncertainty and a stronger emphasis on areas of major concern associated with human-induced climate change. This change in emphasis appears to be the result of a summary process in which scientists work with policy makers on the document. Written responses from U.S. coordinating and lead scientific authors to the committee indicate, however, that (a) no changes were made without the consent of the convening lead authors (this group represents a fraction of the lead and contributing authors) and (b) most changes that did occur lacked significant impact.
See also
- Scientific opinion on climate changeScientific opinion on climate changeThe predominant scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth is in an ongoing phase of global warming primarily caused by an enhanced greenhouse effect due to the anthropogenic release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases...
- List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
- Merchants of DoubtMerchants of DoubtMerchants of Doubt is a 2010 book by the American science historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway. It identifies parallels between the climate change debate and earlier controversies over tobacco smoking, acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer...
: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming
External links
- SPM for the TAR
- Comments on the process by Kevin E. TrenberthKevin E. TrenberthKevin E. Trenberth is head of the Climate Analysis Section at the USA National Center for Atmospheric Research. He was a lead author of the 2001 and 2007 IPCC Scientific Assessment of Climate Change and serves on the Scientific Steering Group for the Climate Variability and Predictability program...