Richard Black, environment correspondent for the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) website, posted his analysis of the upcoming review of the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) global warming research. His analysis is thorough and, if you're interested, the link to the full article is noted at the end of this blog entry.

There is one feature of this review that does need to be pointed out, and that is that the review of the IPCC report is not going to delve into the methodology of the findings. Here's how Richard Black describes it:

"It is not a review of climate science - some would say it ought to be, but it isn't, it's a review of IPCC practice - and it will surely draw more interesting and meaningful conclusions through involving scientists working in completely different fields, with experiences of completely different collating organisations.

They do exist; medicine alone has many. One that provides an interesting comparison is the Cochrane Review process, which aims to provide something analogous to IPCC reports - regular assessments of the evidence base on its chosen subject - but works very differently.

Will the Inter-Academy Council choose to make use of expertise from fields apparently unrelated to climate science? We shall see - and that, perhaps, will be one of the factors that determines how meaningful and visionary the review turns out to be, and how it is eventually perceived."

The link to the full analysis piece is here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/…

Bryce