Climate Policy: Streamline IPCC Reports. Griggs, D. Nature, 508(7495):171–173, April, 2014. doi abstract bibtex As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change asks how its assessment process should evolve, Dave Griggs argues for decadal updates and eased workloads. [Excerpt] Although the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has gained a justified reputation for producing the most up-to-date, comprehensive and authoritative statements of our knowledge of climate change, this has come at a cost to the scientific community. On 13 April, the IPCC releases the last part of its Fifth Assessment Report. Each report has become longer – the latest round-up of scientific evidence is nearly four times the size of the first – and is taking more time and effort to prepare, placing a greater imposition on those involved. Looking ahead to its sixth assessment, the IPCC has formed a task group to improve its operation and products. I believe that the panel should streamline the process and ease the pressure on the many hundreds of scientists who write, review and produce the assessments. IPCC work can ruin lives, as a former lead author told me when I was head of an IPCC Technical Support Unit (TSU) working on the Third Assessment Report1. Over three years, he had devoted months of his own time to his chapter, because his university would not reduce his workload. He had haggled over details with other authors, responded to hundreds of reviewers' comments (twice) and defended the account against distortion by governments. When the report came out he was attacked by deniers and the media, causing him distress. His marriage nearly ended. But when I asked him if he would work on the next report, he said: '' Of course I will do it again, it is the most important thing I have ever done.'' The IPCC reports have value for policy-making and should be continued. Although there is much that we still do not understand about the climate system, as the research has progressed, each report expresses increasing confidence in the basic science. The risks of allowing greenhouse-gas emissions to rise are clear. But the IPCC process must be improved. Future assessments need to be shorter, the writing process streamlined, and lead authors should be compensated for their efforts. [...]
@article{griggsClimatePolicyStreamline2014,
title = {Climate Policy: Streamline {{IPCC}} Reports},
author = {Griggs, David},
year = {2014},
month = apr,
volume = {508},
pages = {171--173},
issn = {0028-0836},
doi = {10.1038/508171a},
abstract = {As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change asks how its assessment process should evolve, Dave Griggs argues for decadal updates and eased workloads.
[Excerpt]
Although the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has gained a justified reputation for producing the most up-to-date, comprehensive and authoritative statements of our knowledge of climate change, this has come at a cost to the scientific community. On 13 April, the IPCC releases the last part of its Fifth Assessment Report. Each report has become longer -- the latest round-up of scientific evidence is nearly four times the size of the first -- and is taking more time and effort to prepare, placing a greater imposition on those involved.
Looking ahead to its sixth assessment, the IPCC has formed a task group to improve its operation and products. I believe that the panel should streamline the process and ease the pressure on the many hundreds of scientists who write, review and produce the assessments.
IPCC work can ruin lives, as a former lead author told me when I was head of an IPCC Technical Support Unit (TSU) working on the Third Assessment Report1. Over three years, he had devoted months of his own time to his chapter, because his university would not reduce his workload. He had haggled over details with other authors, responded to hundreds of reviewers' comments (twice) and defended the account against distortion by governments. When the report came out he was attacked by deniers and the media, causing him distress. His marriage nearly ended. But when I asked him if he would work on the next report, he said: '' Of course I will do it again, it is the most important thing I have ever done.''
The IPCC reports have value for policy-making and should be continued. Although there is much that we still do not understand about the climate system, as the research has progressed, each report expresses increasing confidence in the basic science. The risks of allowing greenhouse-gas emissions to rise are clear.
But the IPCC process must be improved. Future assessments need to be shorter, the writing process streamlined, and lead authors should be compensated for their efforts. [...]},
journal = {Nature},
keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-13132669,check-list,climate-change,ipcc,research-management,research-team-size,science-policy-interface,scientific-communication,transdisciplinary-research},
lccn = {INRMM-MiD:c-13132669},
number = {7495}
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"DauQcMtN39JPCdJkF","bibbaseid":"griggs-climatepolicystreamlineipccreports-2014","downloads":0,"creationDate":"2016-06-22T10:19:57.356Z","title":"Climate Policy: Streamline IPCC Reports","author_short":["Griggs, D."],"year":2014,"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://sharefast.me/php/download.php?id=zOUKvA&token=29","bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Climate Policy: Streamline IPCC Reports","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Griggs"],"firstnames":["David"],"suffixes":[]}],"year":"2014","month":"April","volume":"508","pages":"171–173","issn":"0028-0836","doi":"10.1038/508171a","abstract":"As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change asks how its assessment process should evolve, Dave Griggs argues for decadal updates and eased workloads. [Excerpt] Although the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has gained a justified reputation for producing the most up-to-date, comprehensive and authoritative statements of our knowledge of climate change, this has come at a cost to the scientific community. On 13 April, the IPCC releases the last part of its Fifth Assessment Report. Each report has become longer – the latest round-up of scientific evidence is nearly four times the size of the first – and is taking more time and effort to prepare, placing a greater imposition on those involved. Looking ahead to its sixth assessment, the IPCC has formed a task group to improve its operation and products. I believe that the panel should streamline the process and ease the pressure on the many hundreds of scientists who write, review and produce the assessments. IPCC work can ruin lives, as a former lead author told me when I was head of an IPCC Technical Support Unit (TSU) working on the Third Assessment Report1. Over three years, he had devoted months of his own time to his chapter, because his university would not reduce his workload. He had haggled over details with other authors, responded to hundreds of reviewers' comments (twice) and defended the account against distortion by governments. When the report came out he was attacked by deniers and the media, causing him distress. His marriage nearly ended. But when I asked him if he would work on the next report, he said: '' Of course I will do it again, it is the most important thing I have ever done.'' The IPCC reports have value for policy-making and should be continued. Although there is much that we still do not understand about the climate system, as the research has progressed, each report expresses increasing confidence in the basic science. The risks of allowing greenhouse-gas emissions to rise are clear. But the IPCC process must be improved. Future assessments need to be shorter, the writing process streamlined, and lead authors should be compensated for their efforts. [...]","journal":"Nature","keywords":"*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-13132669,check-list,climate-change,ipcc,research-management,research-team-size,science-policy-interface,scientific-communication,transdisciplinary-research","lccn":"INRMM-MiD:c-13132669","number":"7495","bibtex":"@article{griggsClimatePolicyStreamline2014,\n title = {Climate Policy: Streamline {{IPCC}} Reports},\n author = {Griggs, David},\n year = {2014},\n month = apr,\n volume = {508},\n pages = {171--173},\n issn = {0028-0836},\n doi = {10.1038/508171a},\n abstract = {As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change asks how its assessment process should evolve, Dave Griggs argues for decadal updates and eased workloads.\n\n[Excerpt] \n\nAlthough the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has gained a justified reputation for producing the most up-to-date, comprehensive and authoritative statements of our knowledge of climate change, this has come at a cost to the scientific community. On 13 April, the IPCC releases the last part of its Fifth Assessment Report. Each report has become longer -- the latest round-up of scientific evidence is nearly four times the size of the first -- and is taking more time and effort to prepare, placing a greater imposition on those involved.\n\nLooking ahead to its sixth assessment, the IPCC has formed a task group to improve its operation and products. I believe that the panel should streamline the process and ease the pressure on the many hundreds of scientists who write, review and produce the assessments.\n\nIPCC work can ruin lives, as a former lead author told me when I was head of an IPCC Technical Support Unit (TSU) working on the Third Assessment Report1. Over three years, he had devoted months of his own time to his chapter, because his university would not reduce his workload. He had haggled over details with other authors, responded to hundreds of reviewers' comments (twice) and defended the account against distortion by governments. When the report came out he was attacked by deniers and the media, causing him distress. His marriage nearly ended. But when I asked him if he would work on the next report, he said: '' Of course I will do it again, it is the most important thing I have ever done.''\n\nThe IPCC reports have value for policy-making and should be continued. Although there is much that we still do not understand about the climate system, as the research has progressed, each report expresses increasing confidence in the basic science. The risks of allowing greenhouse-gas emissions to rise are clear.\n\nBut the IPCC process must be improved. Future assessments need to be shorter, the writing process streamlined, and lead authors should be compensated for their efforts. [...]},\n journal = {Nature},\n keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-13132669,check-list,climate-change,ipcc,research-management,research-team-size,science-policy-interface,scientific-communication,transdisciplinary-research},\n lccn = {INRMM-MiD:c-13132669},\n number = {7495}\n}\n\n","author_short":["Griggs, D."],"key":"griggsClimatePolicyStreamline2014","id":"griggsClimatePolicyStreamline2014","bibbaseid":"griggs-climatepolicystreamlineipccreports-2014","role":"author","urls":{},"keyword":["*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM","~INRMM-MiD:c-13132669","check-list","climate-change","ipcc","research-management","research-team-size","science-policy-interface","scientific-communication","transdisciplinary-research"],"downloads":0},"search_terms":["climate","policy","streamline","ipcc","reports","griggs"],"keywords":["check-list","climate-change","ipcc","research-management","research-team-size","science-policy-interface","scientific-communication","transdisciplinary-research","*imported-from-citeulike-inrmm","~inrmm-mid:c-13132669"],"authorIDs":[],"dataSources":["5S2zj2hKW8TWTkuMq"]}