Overview
Title
Call for Expert Reviewers to Submit Comments on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group III Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The State Department wants smart people to help them check a big report on climate change to make sure it's fair and right. People who want to help have to sign up online by January 18, 2021, and send their thoughts by February 22, 2021.
Summary AI
The Department of State, together with the United States Global Change Research Program, is asking expert reviewers to assess the second-order draft of the IPCC Working Group III's contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report. This review process is part of the United States government's ongoing evaluation to ensure the report reflects a balanced and objective view on climate change issues. Experts can register to review the draft and provide comments via the USGCRP's online system starting January 18, 2021. Comments for inclusion in the U.S. government submission must be submitted by February 22, 2021, though experts may also participate in the IPCC's own review process.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document is a notice from the Department of State in cooperation with the United States Global Change Research Program. It calls for expert reviewers to assess the second-order draft of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group III’s contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report. This effort aims to ensure that the report presents a balanced and objective view on climate change issues. Experts are invited to register through an online system starting January 18, 2021, and submit their comments by February 22, 2021.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Several significant issues and concerns arise from the document:
Access to Information: The document provides URLs for the IPCC principles, but does not verify if the links are accessible or up-to-date. Broken or outdated links can lead to confusion and hinder the review process.
Criteria for Reviewers: The document lacks specific qualifications or criteria for participants wishing to contribute to the review. Without clear guidelines, there is a risk of unqualified individuals submitting comments, which could affect the quality of feedback.
Selection and Compensation: There is no mention of how expert reviewers are selected or if there is any compensation for their work. Understanding these factors is important to assess potential biases or conflicts of interest.
Clarity of Purpose: The document does not explain what the second-order draft includes or why expert review is essential at this stage, which could confuse potential reviewers about their role and the expectations of their contributions.
Access to Technology: The notice assumes that potential reviewers have the technology and know-how to use the online review systems, which might not be true for all interested parties.
After Submission Process: The document does not detail the process following the submission of comments, such as how they are reviewed and the criteria for their inclusion in the final report. This lack of transparency could discourage participation from potential reviewers.
Impact on the Public and Stakeholders
Broad Public Impact
The document impacts the general public by contributing to the IPCC Working Group III's report, which addresses crucial climate change issues. Accurate and well-reviewed reports can influence policies and public understanding of climate risks and mitigation strategies. However, if the review process lacks clarity and inclusivity, there could be a public perception that the report does not address all relevant perspectives.
Impact on Stakeholders
Expert Reviewers: Potential expert reviewers might find the call ambiguous due to the lack of specified qualifications and details about their involvement. While it could be an opportunity for professionals to contribute to significant global discussions, unclear guidelines might deter participation.
U.S. Government and IPCC: These bodies rely on expert feedback to create comprehensive reports. A transparent and inclusive review process would enhance the credibility and effectiveness of their work. However, the issues noted may impact the quality of the input they receive, potentially affecting policy-making and international negotiations.
In summary, while the notice seeks to engage experts in a crucial evaluation process, clarity, accessibility, and transparency are essential for maximizing the contribution's value. Addressing these concerns could ensure a more effective review and influential report on climate change, ultimately benefiting both policymakers and the public at large.
Issues
• The document provides URLs for the IPCC principles but does not check if these links are currently accessible or up-to-date, potentially leading to confusion if the links are broken or outdated.
• The call for expert reviewers might not be clear on the qualifications or criteria needed to participate, potentially leading to issues if unqualified individuals attempt to comment.
• The document does not specify how the experts are selected or if there is any compensation or funding for the reviewers, which could be relevant to understanding any potential biases or conflicts of interest.
• There is no detailed explanation of what the second-order draft includes or why expert review is necessary at this stage, which may leave some readers confused about the purpose of the review.
• The notice assumes that potential expert reviewers are aware of and have access to the suitable technology to use the USGCRP Review and Comment System or the IPCC's expert review process, which might not be the case for all interested parties.
• The document should clarify the process that occurs after comments are submitted, such as how comments are reviewed and what criteria determine their inclusion into the report.