INTRODUCTION:

This page provides information on the Independent Summary for Policymakers (ISPM) of the Fourth IPCC Assessment Report (AR4), recently published by the Fraser Institute. The ISPM is not a critique of or a response to the IPCC Report. It is a detailed summary, written on the premise that a great deal of good, balanced science is presented in the IPCC report and it should be widely disseminated and carefully read. The ISPM includes some 300 direct citations to the IPCC report and provides detailed chapter locations so that readers can look up the IPCC sections for themselves.

In producing this Summary we have worked independently of the IPCC, using the Second Order Draft of the IPCC report, as circulated after revisions were made in response to the first expert review period in the winter and spring of 2006. Section references will be checked against the final IPCC version, to be released in May 2007. If, in preparing the final draft of the Fourth Assessment Report, the IPCC substantially rewrites the Assessment text, such that the key summary materials presented herein need to be re-worded, we will do so and publish an Appendix to that effect.

The ISPM makes reference to a group of technical supplements. They are scheduled for publication at the end of March.

Download the Independent Summary for Policymakers


RATIONALE:

The IPCC involves numerous experts in the preparation of its reports. However, chapter authors are frequently asked to summarize current controversies and disputes in which they themselves are professionally involved, which invites bias. Related to this is the problem that chapter authors may tend to favor their own published work by presenting it in a prominent or flattering light. Nonetheless the resulting reports tend to be reasonably comprehensive and informative. Some research that contradicts the hypothesis of greenhouse gas-induced warming is under-represented, and some controversies are treated in a one-sided way, but the reports still merit close attention.

A more compelling problem is that the Summary for Policymakers, attached to the IPCC Report, is produced, not by the scientific writers and reviewers, but by a process of negotiation among unnamed bureaucratic delegates from sponsoring governments. Their selection of material need not and may not reflect the priorities and intentions of the scientific community itself. Consequently it is useful to have independent experts read the underlying report and produce a summary of the most pertinent elements of the report.

Finally, while the IPCC enlists many expert reviewers, no indication is given as to whether they disagreed with some or all of the material they reviewed. In previous IPCC reports many expert reviewers have lodged serious objections only to find that, while their objections are ignored, they are acknowledged in the final document, giving the impression that they endorsed the views expressed therein.

The ISPM addresses these concerns as follows.

• The ISPM was prepared by experts who are fully qualified and experienced in their fields, but who are not themselves IPCC chapter authors, nor are they authors of the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.
• The ISPM summarizes the most important elements of the science, regardless of whether it is given the same level of focus in the IPCC’s Summary documents. There is no attempt to downplay or re-word uncertainties and limitations in the underlying science, hence the summary paragraphs in the ISPM may not be identical to those of the Summary produced by the IPCC.
• If a chapter of the Fourth Assessment Report introduces its topic by briefly elaborating on deep uncertainties, then presents results at length as if the uncertainties were not there, the ISPM may devote proportionally more attention to understanding the uncertainties than summarizing all the results, where this is deemed a more pertinent way to characterize the underlying state of knowledge.
• In a number of places the writing team felt the treatment of a topic was inadequate in the Fourth Assessment Report, or some additional comments were needed for perspective. These are noted in separate sidebars. Also, the Fraser Institute will publish a series of short supplementary papers to provide more detailed critical discussion of some technical subjects. These are noted at various points in the ISPM as well.
• The ISPM was subject to extensive peer review (see below). Their responses to review questions are tabulated so readers can see to what extent the reviewers agree with the contents of this Summary.

Download the Independent Summary for Policymakers

EXPERT REVIEW:

Reviewers were asked to respond to the following questions on the indicated scale from 1—5. The scores given are based on all 55 reviews received to date.

1. To what extent does the ISPM cover the range of topics you consider important for policy makers and other general readers who want to understand climate change?
   • 1 (Quite Inadequately)
   • 2 (Somewhat Inadequately)
   • 3 (Neutral)
   • 4 (Adequately) Mean response = 4.2
   • 5 (Quite Adequately)
2. To what extent do you consider the ISPM to convey the current uncertainties associated with the science of climate change?
   • 1 (Generally overstates the uncertainties)
   • 2 (In some cases overstates the uncertainties)
   • 3 (Is about right) Mean response = 3.3
   • 4 (In some cases understates the uncertainties)
   • 5 (Generally understates the uncertainties)
3. To what extent to you agree with the Overall Conclusions?
   • 1 (Strongly disagree)
   • 2 (Disagree)
   • 3 (Neutral)
   • 4 (Agree) Mean response = 4.4
   • 5 (Strongly Agree)
4. Do you support the publication of the ISPM as a means of communicating the current state of climate science to policy makers and other general readers?
   • 1 (No, strongly opposed)
   • 2 (No, somewhat opposed)
   • 3 (Neutral)
   • 4 (Yes, somewhat in support)
   • 5 (Yes, strongly in support) Mean response = 4.7

REVIEWERS TO DATE:

Alberto Montanari	Hydrology	University of Bologna	Italy
Anastasios Tsonis	Mathematics	University of Wisconsin	USA
Anthony Lupo	Climatology	University of Missouri	USA
Arthur S. deVany	Mathematics	University of California-Irvine	USA
Barrie Jackson	Chemical Engineering	Queen's University	Canada
Bjarne Andersson	Thermodynamics	Niels Bohr Institute	Denmark
Boris Winterhalter	Oceanography	Geological Survey of Finland	Finland
Chris deFreitas	Climatology	University of Auckland	New Zealand
David Deming	Paleoclimatology	University of Oklahoma	USA
David Legates	Climatology	University of Delaware	USA
Demetris Koutsoyiannis	Hydrology	University of Athens	Greece
Dev Niyogi	Climatology	Purdue University	USA
Douglas Hoyt	Solar Physics	Raytheon Corp. (Retired)	USA
Eduardo Zorita	Paleoclimatology	GKSS Institute of Coastal Research	Germany
Einar Sletten	Chemistry	University of Bergen	Norway
Garth Paltridge	Atmospheric science	University of Tasmania	Australia
Gosta Walin	Oceanography	Goteborg University	Sweden
Harry Lins	Hydrology	United States Geological Survey	USA
John Maunder	Climatology	WMO Commission for Climatology (ret'd)	New Zealand
Keith Hage	Meteorology	University of Alberta	Canada
Larry Hulden	Biology	Finnish Museum of Natural History	Finland
Lena Hulden	Historical Biology	University of Helsinki	Finland
Marcel Leroux	Climatology	University of Lyon	France
Nicola Scaffeta	Solar Physics	Duke University	USA
Oddbjorn Engvold	Physics	University of Oslo	Norway
Olav Kvalheim	Physical Chemistry	University of Bergen	Norway
Ole Humlum	Physical Geography	University of Oslo	Norway
Olev Trass	Chemical Engineering	University of Toronto	Canada
Oliver Frauenfeld	Meteorology	University of Colorado	USA
Pat Michaels	Climatology	Virginia Tech	USA
Peter Robinson	Meteorology	University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill	USA
Peter Stilbs	Physical Chemistry	Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden	Sweden
Piia Post	Meteorology	Univ of Tartu	Estonia
Richard Lindzen	Climatology	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	USA
Ramesh Kriplani	Meteorology	Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology	India
Richard McNider	Meteorology	University of Alabama	USA
Robert Balling	Climatology	Arizona State University	USA
Robert Carter	Paleoclimatology	James Cook University	Australia
Robert S. Knox	Physics	University of Rochester	USA
Terence Mills	Statistics	Loughbourough	UK
Thomas N. Chase	Meteorology	University of Colorado	USA
Timothy Patterson	Paleoclimatology	Carleton University	Canada
William Alexander	Engineering	University of Pretoria	South Africa
William Gray	Meteorology	Colorado State University	USA

In addition, 11 reviewers asked to remain anonymous.

RUMOURS AND REALITY:

Some false rumours have been spread on the Internet regarding the ISPM. For the record:

• There was NO funding for this project from Exxon or any other fossil fuel company, or from any other industry. No funding was sought by the Fraser Institute for this project. The Fraser Institute does not do contract research, nor does it accept money from governments. It has not received funding from Exxon for any purpose since 2004, when it received a small grant which was not directed to any specific project. The attempt to smear the ISPM project by a false insinuation that the writers and/or reviewers were in the pay of the fossil fuel sector is nothing more than an attempt to discredit the project in the mind of the public, in order to prevent people from reading it.
• The ISPM is not an attack on the IPCC or a critique of the Fourth Assessment Report. In fact several people involved in the ISPM were themselves contributors or reviewers of the IPCC Report as well. The purpose of the ISPM is to encourage readers to look closely at the IPCC text itself, not simply the Summary released in Paris on February 2, 2007.
• The Fraser Institute exerted no editorial control over the writing at any stage. The writing team had full discretion and control over the final product. By contrast, the IPCC takes a Summary draft produced by scientists and allows sponsoring governments to re-draft it before its release.

Download the Independent Summary for Policymakers


Go to RM's publications page
Go to Ross McKitrick's homepage

cerebral palsy