Human activities which contribute to an increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere: recognise the importance of peer review of results and of communicating results to a wide range of audiences.

The idea

Science is a social process, not just a set of measurements. When a scientist claims that a human activity is adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, other specialists independently scrutinise the method, data and interpretation before the claim is accepted; this is peer review. Reviewers check whether the evidence supports the conclusion, whether the sample and apparatus were suitable, and whether alternative explanations were considered. Results are then communicated to audiences such as other scientists, policymakers, industry and the public, each needing different depth and language. A claim that survives review and is clearly communicated is more trustworthy, and it can inform decisions about emissions.

What earns the marks

• Peer review involves independent experts evaluating the design, data and conclusions of a study before publication or wider acceptance.
• Reviewers may identify flaws such as an unrepresentative sample, uncontrolled variables, faulty calibration or conclusions that go beyond the evidence.
• Communication must be adapted to the audience: a scientific paper for specialists, a summary report for policymakers, a news item or infographic for the public.
• Clear communication allows findings to be checked, replicated and used to inform personal choices, industrial practice and government policy on greenhouse gas emissions.
• Peer review does not guarantee that a claim is correct; it raises confidence by exposing weaknesses to scrutiny.

Common mistakes and how to put them right

• Treating peer review as a single scientist checking the work.

  Put it right: It is independent scrutiny by several qualified specialists who did not carry out the study.

• Assuming communication means only publishing in a journal.

  Put it right: Results are shared with many audiences, including the public and decision-makers, using language suited to each.

• Believing peer-reviewed work can never be wrong.

  Put it right: Review reduces error and bias but conclusions can still be revised when new evidence appears.

Exam tips

• Link each point to a named audience and say what that audience needs from the communication.
• Use the phrase independent scrutiny and give one concrete check a reviewer would make, such as whether variables were controlled.
• When asked why communication matters, connect it to decisions about emissions rather than saying only that it spreads awareness.