June 1, 2010

Scientific Calculator

Dr. Robert Peltier, PE

Finally, Open and Transparent

After years of protests, the IPCC finally completed placing all reviewer comments and editor responses online for the first time last December. Combing through the comments was quite revealing. A quick fact check found that only 152 lead authors prepared the entire WG I report and 600 “scientific expert reviewers” checked their work. Approximately 308 reviewer comments were submitted on the final WG I draft. The controversial Chapter 9 unexpectedly cites a mere 10 lead authors and only 62 reviewers, many non-scientists. My review found that just five reviewers fully endorsed the entire 11-chapter WG I report in their comments.

My review also found a goodly number of reviewer comments were submitted by scientists who were critical of the WG I conclusions and would certainly take issue with being included in the 2,500 “in absolute agreement” cited by Browner. No matter how the numbers are massaged, the number of scientists directly involved in writing or reviewing the most critical conclusions of the entire AR4 (Chapter 9) number only 72 (which includes many non-scientist reviewers) falling far short of the 2,500 scientists that Browner cites as her authority.

The concerns of those scientists who dissent from AR4 is summed up rather well in a recent open letter from 300 U.S. scientists (with the number of signers increasing every day) that includes many former AR4 reviewers. The March 13, 2010 letter (http://www.openletterfromscientists.com) asks our leaders to “bring the focus back to credible science, rather than invented hyperbole.” Then there is http://www.petitionproject.org that lists 31,486 American scientists who dissent from the conclusion of AR4.

Now is the time for the U.S. to take a leadership role in returning policy-neutral science to the forefront of the climate change debate rather than picking policies based on headcount or political agenda.