"U.S., China Got Climate Warnings Toned Down"

Read the full article by Juliet Eilperin in the Washington Post of Saturday, April 7, 2007.

Lead: "Some sections of a grim scientific assessment of the impact of global warming on human, animal and plant life issued in Brussels yesterday were softened at the insistence of officials from China and the United States, participants in the negotiations said."

Comment: Think about this for a moment. Apparently a committee of scientists negotiated with government officials about the wording of a report summarizing the scientific evidence about the impacts of climate change. I am reasonably sure that the scientists knew much more about the evidence than did the government officials with whom they were negotiating. On the other hand, in most cases the government officials would have no way of ordering changes in the text nor in rewarding nor imposing sanctions on the scientists for changes made or not made in the wording.

Apparently some of the negotiation was not in terms of the direction of the evidence, but about the degree of confidence attributed to the interpretation of the evidence. In another cited case, the negotiation was apparently about the appropriateness of the conclusion for the report of Working Group II rather than another working group.

I suspect, annoying as the story is to my tree hugger side, the process of subjecting the report to criticism by outsiders actually improved its accuracy. Indeed, getting detailed inputs from people with strong political interests probably provided the motivation to nit-pick the report still one more time.

The caveat, I think, is that there should be no political power over the content of the report, and no rewards (grant funding, awards) not penalties (loss of funding, loss of tenure or position) imposed on the scientists as a result of the negotiations. Unfortunately, I don't know that these conditions are assured for all countries, nor indeed that they are assured for the United States. JAD