 Good morning, everyone. Thank you all so much for being here and as Vivica and Peter have mentioned a couple of times I am officially employed by the U.S. National Park Service and when I registered for this conference last year That is the affiliation that I use but I need to give a disclaimer this morning Due to intervening events. I am here in my personal capacity and under the flag of a professional service With that I will jump in and get started and just state that Pearyview is utterly frameless and absolutely essential. To do it well you have to get inside the mind of an author You have to understand what they're trying to say, figure out if they've said it Whether it's justified by the evidence they've given and suggest ways to make their work better In some Pearyview asks us to be uber-authors without getting all of the authors right At the same time Pearyview is essential to how the scientific world works including our own It's how we grow confidence in the work that is published and share experiences and perspectives At best it's scientific collaboration writ large. It's a community of scholars saying if you're review for me I'll review for you. Today what I'm going to do is share some experience I've had with Pearyview as the core of sharing with you some analyses and recommendations about the connections between archaeology and the world of climate change science and response And the focus of my review are the reports of the IPCC. IPCC stands for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It was founded in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the UN Environment Program with the goal of providing policy makers with regular assessments of the scientific basis for climate change and assessments of adaptation and mitigation strategies. The IPCC consists of a secretariat that coordinates a rotating roster of hundreds of scientists from around the world that produce periodic large assessment reports and more episodic special reports on individual topics. Now the assessment reports are actually set of three reports that are produced respectively by three working groups. Working group one produces a report on climate science, working group two produces a report on impacts and adaptation, working group three is mitigation and occasionally they produce a synthesis report as well. The assessment reports have come out very regularly the first one in 1990 second in 1995 third in 2001 the AR4 for the assessment report is 2007 the most recent one that's available appeared fully in 2014 the AR4 and the sixth assessment report is now in preparation scheduled for release in 2021. Special reports have included things like safeguarding the ozone layer and carbon capture and storage renewable energy and managing the consequences of extreme events and disasters. There are now three special reports also currently in preparation these include limiting warming to 1.5 degrees c, oceans and cryosphere and land use. Out for a moment on a very big scale and recognize that the IPCC has recognized from its very founding that modern climate change is the result of human activity. This human activity is the use of fossil fuels in changes and land use on an extensive scale linked to the start of the industrial revolution which is generally recognized to have started at about 1770s. So recent climate modeling has estimated that departures of our climate from natural gravity variability began to depart from that variability in early 1830s. Therefore both historical and post medieval archaeology have so much to say in documenting and tracking the development of this socially and environmentally. In turn archaeology of earlier time periods has so much to say about the social and environmental baselines from which we have departed, alternate ways of living and thinking, patterns of human memories and ways of identifying and responding to acute disasters and environmental change. And together all types of archaeology can connect people to place, anger of senses of identity and community, and which are really important components of viable adaptation and sustainable approaches to reducing the carbon intensity of our modern life ways. Given all of this archaeology of heritage should have a clear role in an identifiable presence in the reports of the IPCC, right? No, they do not. There is some in a recent analysis which I'll describe more in a moment. The fifth assessment report, the most recent one, has a total of 173 mentions of cultural heritage and related terms. 166 of these reference living indigenous cultures and the concept of culture broadly. Seven mentions reference archaeology and prehistory. Now absolutely the attention to indigenous peoples and living cultures must be there and it should include and likely be much larger, but the problem that I really want to call out is the low attention to archaeology. Now in recent years, there have been a number of studies that have talked about the impacts of climate change on archaeology. I'll just briefly mention a recent review of impacts in the Arctic, led by Jordan Collison, working in the U.S. looking at archaeological sites across the southeast, led by David Anderson, the work of our wonderful colleagues at Scape. The Society for American Archaeology has been putting forward the concept of burning libraries is the need to develop an archival from all of the sites that are at risk. And of course, there are many efforts going on across various nations to address these issues and I will note there is work of the National Arts Service, a historic United Settlements, a historic England and Cherish just to name a few who I know are in the room today. But my proposal is that given the range of exposures that are affecting archaeology, the kind of response that is needed to meet both the projected loss of archaeology and to realize the potential of archaeology to assist with climate change response, it's not going to happen unless we are well represented in the reports that are most respected and most used by governments around the world. We may not be heard even then, but being a well integrated part of the IPCC, I say, must be part of our best shot. So where are we and what should we do? First, a little bit more about the IPCC. The IPCC is not a synthesis organization. Their goal is to assess the peer review literature that already exists, which means that there are several strands of data that have been published, but there isn't a publication that brings those threads together and connects them to modern climate change issues. The IPCC is not going to do that work. Also, the IPCC preferences selection of authors who have previous experience working with the IPCC, and it also works to use a global distribution of authors, each of which are nominated by their home countries. What this means for archaeology is that biases and gaps in previous author distributions are likely to be translated forward into future reports, as those authors are preferentially selected again. And while the global distribution is absolutely essential and they should be commended for all the efforts they put into doing that, when combined with that preference for previous authors, there may be some suppression of diversity in the disciplines that are represented. So given this, our first line of action has to be to understand what the IPCC has recognized as relevant heritage topics and relevant heritage literature. You need to know where the gaps are big and where they are small. And in figuring this out, I am deeply indebted to the Heritage Futures Program at the University College of London and Hannah Morrell, who works there, who did a deep dive into the AR4 and the AR5 in search of heritage. She used this series of search terms and then analyzed them and organized them into a series of topics. She even pulled out every single section that mentions any one of those heritage terms. This is how I got to those numbers that I showed you previously. There are so many ways to understand this. Both of us are still working through it. What it does show is that the broad scope of heritage living indigenous cultures have a substantially greater representation than information from and about our past. So again, this is where we need to work. Our next line of action is to get more archaeologists involved in the process of creating IPCC reports. This is episodic. We can only do this when they're scoping or writing a report. Over the last year and a half or so through the Society for American Archaeology, I have helped to foster several nominations, a total of 20 nominations for the AR6 and the degree of special reports. And we have one success. Archaeologist Tim Kohler was accepted to help scope the AR6 and he actually gave a presentation on archaeology to their scoping meeting in Addis Ababa in May 2017. I reviewed the outline of the AR6. I have not seen any specific pieces from Tim, but there may be some components that will go forward. But to realize the work that Tim hopefully has started, I need to finally get to my core example, which is peer review. Over the last year, I have peer reviewed the special report on limiting warming to 1.5 and the labor use reports and the U.S. National Climate Assessment. None of them have been completed, but the 1.5 report has gone through both the first and second order draft, which means I've been able to look at the second order draft and see which of my comments were taken up. So that's what I'm going to share you with you right now. In sum, I submitted a total of 19 comments. Two of these were taken up. The IPCC requests that their draft report is not recited, quoted, or distributed, so what I can share with you is what I said. Most of my comments are long. They look like this, basically saying there's something wrong and I recommend wrapping these to fill it. Some of them are short. Just saying, here's the problem, please fill it. Neither of these two particular examples were taken up. The two kinds of my comments were taken up were of that long a variety saying there's something wrong. Please use this, reference this, reference, or possibly this, reference. Now on the first, and these look quite similar. So I did a deep talk to say what might be different between the particular references that weren't taken up in the first example I showed and these. And what I found was one of them concluded with a statement, which may sound very similar to us, that said, historical studies cannot help us to understand current society. We beg them at all. They ended with the idea that transformation may yield a name. But the two that were taken up, including some surviving Senate environmental change, included a full statement on the relevance of archaeology for policy makers, and a role here in the tourism line, which I know Catherine from Sam was mentioned, includes direct specific case studies on impacts of climate change on heritage and effects on tourism. So my first recommendation is how the field of archaeology should go forward, is that we need more publications that explicitly detail impacts and that explicitly connect insights from the past to modern climate policy issues. But published alone is not going to get us there. There are still all of the other current IPCC biases that select away from heritage that we need to contend with. Fortunately, we currently have a chance at something bigger. ECOMOS, which is the International Council on Monuments and Sites over the last year, has launched a new climate change and heritage working group. Discussions of this group with the World Heritage Committee has led to a formal request from the World Heritage Committee to ECOMOS to work with the IPCC to create an expert meeting on cultural heritage and climate change, hopefully leading to our own special report on cultural heritage and climate change, or possibly a chapter in the AR7. The ECOMOS working group has their boards stood up to working groups. The first is trying to align the entire heritage world with the goals of the Paris Agreement, and the other one is to oversee this work with the IPCC. This IPCC team is led by me, and so now here I am talking with you. Our work plan for the IPCC team is based on all that I have just shared with you, and it includes continuing to review IPCC reports and nominate authors wherever possible, preparing for the special meeting, which includes figuring out what are the key issues for and from heritage for climate change, and what do we most want to see addressed in a special report for chapter, and then also reviewing what is the state of literature that we need to get us there. And finally, we need to continue fostering new publications to connect our field gaps in the literature between past and present. This is all now taking place in part of even larger context. Next week, as part of the Global Climate Action Summit, which will be happening in San Francisco, there will be the launch of a new climate heritage network. This is an effort to mobilize the heritage and related fields broadly for climate change, with the goal of greater visibility about the needs of heritage and exercising our ability to help. Final call. Now you can hold. EAA is considering your request to join the Climate Heritage Network, so let us know. We can discuss this further. EAA has a climate change community. We will be launching this further in then, as Peter mentioned at the start of our session. If you're interested in able to support the work of the ECOMOS IPCC team, please let me know. And please, in all of the future work that you do, know that climate response needs specific kinds of literature in a short time frame. These include clear documentation of the climate impacts on archaeology and heritage, documentation of the benefits of archaeology and heritage for adaptation, where has it already been useful, and direct and specific application of archaeological findings to major climate change issues. If we can do all of these things, there'll be a foundation on which we can build for a very long time. And you can see I'm already draining of the cover art for our special report. Thank God. I will say thank you.