Who can we trust?

The Third National Climate Assessment (NCA) Report has just been released for public review. I will not comment on the content of that report here. That will come later. This week I simply ask who it is that produced this report and can they be trusted?

In 1989 President Bush established the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), which was authorized by Congress in 1990. This program has coordinated the efforts of 13 federal departments and agencies (see graphic) for over two decades.

In December 2010, the National Climate Assessment and Development Advisory Committee (NCADAC) was established under the Department of Commerce and supported through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). It is a federal advisory committee (Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972) under the auspices of the USGCRP. It continues the work of previous such committees.

The mission of the NCADAC is to "synthesize and summarize the science and information pertaining to current and future impacts of climate change upon the United States; and to provide advice and recommendations toward the development of an ongoing, sustainable national assessment of global change impacts and adaptation and mitigation strategies for the Nation" (Aug 2011). Their first task is to "integrate, evaluate, and interpret the findings of the USGCRP and discuss the scientific uncertainties with such findings". This committee reports to the USGCRP through the Undersecretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere.

Previous National Climate Assessment (NCA) reports from the USGRCP were made in 2000 and 2009. According to the National Research Council, these demonstrated that "An assessment can establish the importance of an issue, provide an authoritative resolution of policy-relevant scientific questions, demonstrate the benefits of policy options, identify new research directions, and provide technical solutions".

What about this report?

(1) This assessment report is the outcome of a process that is both scientific and political. The political aspects, however, are assuaged by the fact that the process has occurred over more than two decades under four different administrations from both major parties.

(2) The process has been overseen by thirteen agencies and departments. While it is true we don't know how closely each of these federal entities have followed the developments, all of them bear responsibility and some of them (NOAA for example) are intimately involved.

(3) This specific committee has deliberately sought to engage a broad spectrum of stakeholders, and the committee set up a number of ways for this to occur.

(4) The report is authored by over 240 individuals. I don't know them personally, but the diversity of the group is impressive and their credentials impeccable. The transparency of the entire process is reassuring.

(5) The report is now open to public comment. If you take issue with any conclusion, statement, word, or punctuation mark, you may go to the Review and Comment System and provide your input. Furthermore, the National Academy of Sciences is specifically enjoined to participate in this review.

What is my opinion?

I am inclined to take this report seriously.