1/n #Water folks on twitter. The second order draft of @IPCC_CH will be open for review on 4th Dec. Please register and provide your valuable comments. Our author team of 12 LAs and 50+ CA’s have worked hard to gather evidence on impact of CC on water and society. Help us improve
2/n. This is the last time the draft will undergo expert review. Next draft will only undergo government review. Our #water chapter is 60 pages long and covers a lot of material. It may seem a bit overwhelming to review so much material. Some tips based on my own experience.
3/n. Read the 2 pages Executive Summary. Curly brackets at end of each sentence/paragraph tells you which section of the chapter that finding pertains to. Feel free to skip to your chosen section(s) based on your expertise and interest and provide comments for those sections.
4/n. Often we get a lot of editorial comments, which isn’t helpful since the draft gets copy edited later on. What’s helpful is focusing on the content. Tell us if you disagree with our assessment. If so, provide supporting literature(s), just saying you disagree isn’t helpful.
5/n. Also helpful is saying that we have missed some critical pieces of literature that we should look up. We have to refer to every literature that’s suggested and take a call if it’s relevant or not for our assessment. So, we read everything you suggest.
6/n. Make sure the lit you suggest has links to climate change, impacts, adaptation, vulnerability etc. Especially useful is suggesting studies from regions which you may think are underrepresented in our chapter. We would love that.
7/n. We are also happy to receive literature which is not in English, as long as the abstract is available in English. Papers in all major languages, e.g Spanish, French, Chinese, Japanese, Russian etc. are welcome. Our author team has diverse language skills.
1. #NewYorkTimes carries my photo. ⬇️ This article is also an example of all that is wrong with coverage of climate science by the international media. nytimes.com/2022/03/01/cli…
2. It publishes a piece on a paper that if not exactly “supernova of stupid”, is still very inconsequential. Possibly the only reason it got published is because it is written by senior white male academics. I can't imagine any journal publishing anything like this by me.
3. Of all the things #NYT could have written about, they chose this article. Their prerogative. They talked to me for an hour, where I told them that this journal article has been written from a western privilege point of view and miscontrues scientist pact with society.