Why does the IPCC reserve the right to CHANGE THE DATA?

Question

In my previous question I revealed my primary objection to the various IPCC reports. It is their “PROCEDURES FOR THE PREPARATION, REVIEW, ACCEPTANCE, ADOPTION, APPROVAL AND PUBLICATION OF IPCC REPORTS” and in particular the statement, “Changes … made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter.”

I cannot get past the place where the authors reserve the right to CHANGE THE DATA to match their conclusions.

2nd Question:
How can they, in good faith, arrive at a Summary and an Overview that do not match (i.e. require changes to) the data?

The IPCC procedure is available from:
http://www.ipcc.ch/about/app-a.pdf

It is also available from:
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/ipcc/app-a.pdf

I accept that "the data" may be nothing more than studies used to create the final report. Deleting studies in conflict with the conclusion, or worse, referencing the study but eliminating from the text any data from the study in conflict with the conclusion constitutes "changing the data."

Answer 1

They don't.

In fact, it's not possible for the IPCC to "change the data", because they're simply reviewing and summarizing scientific papers and studies which have already been completed.

What your quote is referring to is that the authors can change the recommendations based on that data, if the policymakers (a.k.a. politicians) get chicken about it.

In other words, they can make their recommendations more conservative in order to appease politicians, who know that there's a realistic limit to how much of a greenhouse gas emissions reduction they can push for. The IPCC would prefer they push for a larger reductions than politicians are willing to accept, thus they have this procedure which allows for a compromise between the two.

Answer 2

They don't change any data. That's the answer. But there's more, and it's important.

Process; The full IPCC report is written first by the scientists and peer reviewed.

A short summary is then prepared. The SUMMARY is reviewed by policy types from the countries. Some edits are made to the wording of the summary (NOT THE DATA). The scientists are generally quite successful at keeping them minimal.

But MOST IMPORTANT - the policy edits don't go toward making anthropogenic global warming more likely or more dangerous. THEY GO IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION, toward "skepticism".

For example the scientists wanted to say it was "virtually certain" that global warming was mostly man made. The US and China insisted on "very likely". Not a huge change, but in the wrong direction for skeptics who say we shouldn't trust the IPCC reports because they're political.

Then some words in the full report (NOT THE DATA) are changed to avoid making the policy guys look foolish.

Yes, it's political. Countries wouldn't participate in the IPCC process without this.

But it does not make anthropogenic global warming less likely or less dangerous than the IPCC report. The changes are minimal.

They make global warming MORE likely and MORE dangerous than the IPCC report says.

PROFESSOR TIM FLANNERY: "Of course, being a consensus document, a lot of the material that I think is reasonably well-supported also gets weeded out through that process. If the IPCC says it you better believe it and then leave room to think it is actually a lot worse than they have said."

Answer 3

Why do you think this is such an issue? The same panel that approves the Summary for Policymakers and the Overview Chapter also approves the main Synthesis Report, and any changes to the chapter have to be given to the Panel. If there were major problems, the Panel would not accept the SFP. Furthermore, the IPCC doesn't change any primary data, they only work with results in the peer-reviewed literature. There is no way for them to modify data that has been published, and they don't use unpublished results (at least in terms of the hard climate science (there is a section discussing the use of non-peer-reviewed data, but that mainly pertains to socio-economic impacts)).

Anyway, as Dana points out, most of the changes made have been in the direction of calling for less urgent action, not more. If anything, the severity of the consequences and the the evidence supporting the idea mankind is affecting climate have been understated by the IPCC, not overstated.

Go through the list of corrections to the AR4 that are available online. Point out specific instances where a more urgent tone was adopted, or it was requested that there should be more emphasis placed on making the case that humans are affecting climate. You will be hard-pressed to find these instances (although you could point out that the nearly delusional rantings of Gray, whose comments are all in the vein of removing any reference that man is affecting climate, are routinely rejected by the Panel). In nearly all cases, the changes are in the direction towards understatement.

It would be very simple and convenient for everyone if the IPCC were totally corrupted. Unfortunately, it isn't and it does represent the best synthesis of the relation to anthropogenic radiatively active trace gases and their affect on climate.

Answer 4

Give em a break it's very hard traveling around the globe for all the meetings. How would you like to have to travel to Valencia Spain, Bankok , Bonn , Paris France, Geneva, Lubeck . Like as if they are having such a great time. I bet they hate themselves for burning so much jet fuel.
They really change data by getting rid of any member that questions the "working group" or "panel" about validity of the numbers.

Answer 5

Yup the IPCC came up with recommendations based on science. And then the US, Chinese and another party, I forgot who it was, beat them up till they lower it to a level they can stomach. Scientists work for years on this information and then come up against diplomats for a couple of days and get forced into something completely against thier professional nature; poor sods.

Answer 6

Clearly that are just guessing. No one can predict the future.