AR6 WG1 final revised report and expert review comments have just been released

Adapted from an email from David Burton

It appears that the IPCC has finally finished their revisions to the “final” AR6 WG1 Report. This web page has been redesigned and expanded:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/

If you scroll down to the bottom you can find the heretofore secret list of Expert Reviewers:

ANNEX X

Expert Reviewers

DOWNLOAD 

And here’s the page with the FOD and SOD documents, and the links to the Expert Reviewer comments and responses:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/drafts-and-reviews/

Note that, until now, even the Expert Reviewers, themselves, were not permitted to see any of this material. Even while reviewing the SOD (Second Order Draft) we were not permitted to see the authors’ responses to even our own FOD (First Order Draft) comments.

In the case of our FOD comments, we’ve had to wait nearly three years to see the authors’ responses.

The IPCC’s “expert review” process, despite the similar name, does not resemble peer review for academic papers. The IPCC treats its own “expert reviewers” like mushrooms. The IPCC’s authors needn’t even take reviewer comments into consideration.

Imagine an academic journal which ran its peer-review process the way that the IPCC runs their “expert review” process:

1. Reviewers write comments, the authors ignore them or not, as they see fit.
2. Eventually (perhaps years later!) the authors write excuses for ignoring reviewers’ comments, but they don’t even show those responses to the reviewers until after the Report is published.

That’s how the IPCC’s “Expert Review” process works.

Imagine an academic journal which conducted its peer review process like that. Would YOU trust such a journal? Would YOU publish in it?

Of course not. Nobody sensible would.

Then why would anyone trust the IPCC’s Reports?

Dave

via Watts Up With That?

May 8, 2022

“Trust” the Process: IPCC AR6 WG1 Edition