The final revised report AR6 WG1 and expert opinion just published
Adapted from David Burton’s email
It looks like the IPCC has finally finalized their revisions to the “final” AR6 WG1 Report. This site has been redesigned and expanded:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
If you scroll to the bottom, you can find a list of Expert Reviewers’ secrets here:
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE
Expert assessment
DOWNLOAD
And here’s the page with the FOD and SOD documents and links to Expert Reviewer comments and feedback:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/drafts-and-reviews/
Note that, to date, not even the Expert Reviewers themselves have been authorized to view any of these materials. Even with the SOD (Second Order Draft) review, we weren’t allowed to see the authors’ responses to even our own FOD (First Order Draft) comments.
In the case of our FOD review, we had to wait almost three years to see the authors’ response.
The IPCC “expert review” process, despite its similar name, is not the same as peer review of scholarly articles. The IPCC treats its own “expert reviewers” like mushrooms. The IPCC authors don’t even need to consider the reviewer’s comments.
Imagine an academic journal implementing a peer review process the way the IPCC does their “expert review” process:
- Reviewers write comments, the author omits or doesn’t, as they see fit.
- Finally (perhaps years later!) The authors write reasons to ignore reviewer comments, but they don’t even show those responses to reviewers until the Report is published.
That is how the IPCC “Expert Review” process works.
Imagine an academic journal conducting its peer review process like that. Will FRIEND trust such a magazine? Will FRIEND published in it?
Of course not. No one would reasonably.
So why do people trust the IPCC Report?
Dave
Related
