On the other hand, Robert Stavins has published his call <http://www.robertstavinsblog.org/2014/04/25/is-the-ipcc-government-approval-process-broken-2/>to the three Co-chairs of the AR5 WGIII ( cc'd to Pachauri) that the IPCC should tell all people interested in this latest IPCC effort that they need to read the entire 2,000 page plus document rather than the 33 page summary. It matters, when governments are involved, writes Stavins, if the document in question was subject to government *comment*, or whether it was subject to government* approval*. He suggests the Summary *For* Policy Makers should be called the Summary *By* Policymakers from now on.
He blogs that "the process the IPCC followed resulted in a process that built political credibility by sacrificing scientific integrity." In the part of the SPM he was a Co-coordinating Lead Author on, "*all*" controversial text, i.e. 75% of what they started with was removed. The objections of one country were enough to force removal of whatever they were objecting to. It didn't matter whether the country was rich or poor: "any text that was considered inconsistent with their interests and positions in multilateral negotiations was treated as unacceptable." He is publicly questioning whether the IPCC should continue to ask people such as himself to "put enormous amounts of their time over multi-year periods to carry out work that will inevitably be rejected" If Bolin were still around, I wonder what he would say in response to an argument such as Stavins puts forward. On Thursday, April 24, 2014 4:21:29 AM UTC-7, O Morton wrote: > > I kind of object to the idea that the SPM process constitutes "tampering > by politicians". First: it's the process, an intergovernmental process, > that gives the IPCC heft. It was baked into the design by Bert Bolin in > order to create a document that would fulfill politcal functions. If you > don't want a consensus document with heft that's fine. But if you do want > one, you have to explain how that could be achieved without having > governments in the process. Second: it sort of assumes that only the > politicians bring the politics. there's politics throughout the process of > various sorts. The politicians' are more overt. But they also remove > politics (cf the removal of preliminary matter in WGIII about ethics) > > best, o > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
