The summary for policy makers of the special report on global warming at 1.5oC (SR15) is available under www.ipcc.ch/sr15 or www.ipcc.ch. The IPCC`s technical reports derive their credibility primarily from a comprehensive, transparent and iterative peer review process that, as noted above, is considered to be much more comprehensive than that of a single publication in a scientific journal, evaluated by experts. This is due to the number of criticisms, the extent of their disciplinary backgrounds and scientific perspectives, and the inclusion of independent evaluation editors who attest that all comments have been duly taken into account by the authors and adequately resolved. To be as complete and open as possible, a balanced audit begins effectively with the selection of the main authors. The deliberate involvement of authors representing all opinions allows for the development of many areas of disagreement in discussions between the authors, rather than waiting for the document to be sent for verification. The first round of review is carried out by a large number of evaluators – about 2000 for the AR5 as a whole – including scientists, industry representatives and NGO experts, with many perspectives. Lead authors are required to consider all comments and include those of scientific value – a process overseen by review editors who have expertise on the specific topic covered in a particular chapter. All evaluation comments are archived with the authors` responses and/or the resulting actions and are available on request. In case of large differences, lead authors are encouraged to arrange a meeting with contributing authors and review editors to discuss and resolve differences. The aim is not to reach a potentially „watered down“ compromise that conceals scientific uncertainties or genuine differences in opinions, but to establish a report of the highest scientific integrity that accurately and appropriately reflects the state of our understanding. The revised draft will then be referred to the evaluators and government officials for the government review phase. Every government has the right to organize any type of review process it deems appropriate.
Thus, in the past, the U.S. government has received input from authorities, scientific experts and the public (through an announcement in the federal registry) as a starting point for its comments. The IPCC evaluates the thousands of scientific work that are published each year to tell policy makers what we know and don`t know about the risks of climate change. The IPCC identifies points of convergence within the scientific community, differences of opinion and the need for further research. She doesn`t do her own research. The IPCC is the brain of an international scientific group, the Greenhouse Gas Advisory Group established in 1985 by the International Council of Scientific Unions, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to make recommendations based on recent research. This small group of scientists did not have the resources to cover the increasingly complex interdisciplinary nature of climate science. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the State Department wanted an international convention to agree on greenhouse gas restrictions, and the conservative Reagan administration was concerned about the unbridled influence of independent scientists or non-organizations, including UNEP and WMO. The United States