Secondly, it has been important for its continued credibility that the IPCC has
confined itself in its reports and statements to scientific information and has
avoided making judgements or giving advice about policy. Often in the past these
areas have been confused. The scientific information must, of course, be
comprehensive and must include input from all relevant scientific disciplines,
including the social sciences. But in the formulation and presentation of policy
options or in making policy judgements the scientific input must be clearly
distinguished from the policy judgements and decisions. The importance in
environmental decision making of this separation of scientific and other expert
assessment from policy judgement is argued in a recent report of the Royal
Commission on Environmental Pollution in the UK.
Thirdly, all parts of the assessment process need to be completely open and
transparent. IPCC documents including early drafts and review comments have
been freely and widely available — adding much to the credibility of the process
and its conclusions.
Fourthly, the purpose of an assessment is to take account of all scientific data
and all genuine scientific opinion and to elucidate and articulate the best scientific
interpretation and conclusions from the information available. Scientific assessments
must not start with preconceived assumptions and no compromises must be
made to meet any personal or political agendas. A thorough and wide peer review
process helps to guarantee the honesty and comprehensiveness of the process.
Fifthly, the scientific information must be integrated in a thoroughly balanced
way. The amount of data available concerning climate and climate change is very
large and it is easy to select data that fits in with a wide range of preconceived
ideas or assumptions. However, by involving so many scientists from the
complete range of relevant disciplines it has been possible to develop a balanced
integration of the information in a way that has commanded general acceptance.
6 IPCC’s Work in Science Applications and in Social Sciences
Working Groups II and III of IPCC have been concerned with the impacts of
climate change and adaptation to and mitigation of climate change. Consideration
of these has involved not only natural scientists but also experts from many areas
of social science, especially economics. As with WGI the aim of the other
Working Groups has been to involve scientists with a wide range of expertise and
from as many countries as possible. This has been less easy in the social sciences
than in the natural sciences where, especially in a subject like the science of
climate, there has been a long tradition of scientists working together across
national boundaries. However, through the stimulation of the IPCC a substantial
international community of social scientists has been brought together to address
the variety of problems exposed by the climate change issue.
In this area, as in natural science, the IPCC has stressed the importance of
separating the scientific analysis from policy judgements. But it is clearly more
difficult when dealing with economic or political analysis to make this separation
A full discussion of the inputs to the environmental policy determination and the process of decision
making is given in the 21st Report of the UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution,
Setting Environmental Standards, The Stationery Office, London, 1998.
J. Houghton
6
confined itself in its reports and statements to scientific information and has
avoided making judgements or giving advice about policy. Often in the past these
areas have been confused. The scientific information must, of course, be
comprehensive and must include input from all relevant scientific disciplines,
including the social sciences. But in the formulation and presentation of policy
options or in making policy judgements the scientific input must be clearly
distinguished from the policy judgements and decisions. The importance in
environmental decision making of this separation of scientific and other expert
assessment from policy judgement is argued in a recent report of the Royal
Commission on Environmental Pollution in the UK.
Thirdly, all parts of the assessment process need to be completely open and
transparent. IPCC documents including early drafts and review comments have
been freely and widely available — adding much to the credibility of the process
and its conclusions.
Fourthly, the purpose of an assessment is to take account of all scientific data
and all genuine scientific opinion and to elucidate and articulate the best scientific
interpretation and conclusions from the information available. Scientific assessments
must not start with preconceived assumptions and no compromises must be
made to meet any personal or political agendas. A thorough and wide peer review
process helps to guarantee the honesty and comprehensiveness of the process.
Fifthly, the scientific information must be integrated in a thoroughly balanced
way. The amount of data available concerning climate and climate change is very
large and it is easy to select data that fits in with a wide range of preconceived
ideas or assumptions. However, by involving so many scientists from the
complete range of relevant disciplines it has been possible to develop a balanced
integration of the information in a way that has commanded general acceptance.
6 IPCC’s Work in Science Applications and in Social Sciences
Working Groups II and III of IPCC have been concerned with the impacts of
climate change and adaptation to and mitigation of climate change. Consideration
of these has involved not only natural scientists but also experts from many areas
of social science, especially economics. As with WGI the aim of the other
Working Groups has been to involve scientists with a wide range of expertise and
from as many countries as possible. This has been less easy in the social sciences
than in the natural sciences where, especially in a subject like the science of
climate, there has been a long tradition of scientists working together across
national boundaries. However, through the stimulation of the IPCC a substantial
international community of social scientists has been brought together to address
the variety of problems exposed by the climate change issue.
In this area, as in natural science, the IPCC has stressed the importance of
separating the scientific analysis from policy judgements. But it is clearly more
difficult when dealing with economic or political analysis to make this separation
A full discussion of the inputs to the environmental policy determination and the process of decision
making is given in the 21st Report of the UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution,
Setting Environmental Standards, The Stationery Office, London, 1998.
J. Houghton
6