Editing IPCC Third Assessment Report (section)

===Endorsements===
In 2001, 16 national [[academy of sciences|science academies]] issued a joint statement on climate change.<ref name="2001 science academies statement">{{citation|title=The Science of Climate Change: A joint statement by 16 national science academies|date=17 May 2001|url=http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2001/10029.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150419074652/https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2001/10029.pdf|location=London|publisher=Royal Society|isbn=978-0854035588|archive-date=19 April 2015}}</ref>

The joint statement was made by the [[Australian Academy of Science]], the [[Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Science and the Arts]], the [[Brazilian Academy of Sciences]], the [[Royal Society of Canada]], the [[Caribbean Academy of Sciences]], the [[Chinese Academy of Sciences]], the [[French Academy of Sciences]], the [[German Academy of Sciences Leopoldina|German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina]], the [[Indian National Science Academy]], the [[Indonesian Academy of Sciences]], the [[Royal Irish Academy]], [[Accademia dei Lincei|Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei]] (Italy), the [[Academy of Sciences Malaysia]], the [[Royal Society of New Zealand|Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand]], the [[Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences]], and the [[Royal Society]] (UK).<ref name="2001 science academies statement" />
The statement, also published as an editorial in the journal [[Science (journal)|''Science'']], stated "we support the [TAR's] conclusion that it is at least 90% certain that temperatures will continue to rise, with average global surface temperature projected to increase by between 1.4 and 5.8&nbsp;°C above 1990 levels by 2100".<ref>{{citation|title=The Science of Climate Change (editorial)|date=18 May 2001|journal=Science|volume=292|issue=5520|page=1261|doi=10.1126/science.292.5520.1261|pmid=11360966|s2cid=129309907 |last1=Australian Academy Of |first1=Science |author2=Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts |last3=Brazilian Academy Of |first3=Sciences |author4=Royal Society of Canada |last5=Caribbean Academy Of |first5=Sciences |last6=Chinese Academy Of |first6=Sciences |last7=French Academy Of |first7=Sciences |author8=German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina |author9=Indian National Science Academy |last10=Indonesian Academy Of |first10=Sciences |last11=Royal Irish |first11=Academy |author12=Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy) |last13=Academy Of Sciences |first13=Malaysia |author14=Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand |author15=Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences |last16=Turkish Academy Of |first16=Sciences |author17=Royal Society (UK) }}
</ref>

The TAR has also been endorsed by the [[Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences]],<ref name="cfcas tar endorsement">{{Cite web|title=CFCAS Letter to PM, November 25, 2005|url=http://www.cfcas.org/LettertoPM19apr06e.pdf|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100821222002/http://www.cfcas.org/LettertoPM19apr06e.pdf|archive-date=21 August 2010|access-date=9 August 2019}}</ref> [[Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society]],<ref name="cmos tar endorsement">{{cite web|author=Bob Jones|title=CMOS Position Statement on Global Warming|url=http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html|access-date=25 June 2012|publisher=Cmos.ca|archive-date=9 May 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120509230106/http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html|url-status=live}}</ref> and [[European Geosciences Union]]<ref name="egu tar endorsement">{{cite web|author=European Geosciences Union Divisions of Atmospheric and Climate Sciences|date=7 July 2005|title=Position Statement on Climate Change and Recent Letters from the Chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce|url=http://www.egu.eu/about/statements/position-statement-of-the-divisions-of-atmospheric-and-climate-sciences/|access-date=12 August 2021|archive-date=29 June 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170629212306/http://www.egu.eu/about/statements/position-statement-of-the-divisions-of-atmospheric-and-climate-sciences/|url-status=dead}}</ref> (refer to "[[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change#Endorsements and awards|Endorsements of the IPCC]]").

In 2001, the [[US National Research Council]] (US NRC)<ref>
{{harvnb|US NRC|2001}}
</ref> produced a report that assessed Working Group I's (WGI) contribution to the TAR. US NRC (2001)<ref>{{citation|title=Summary|url=http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10139&page=1|year=2001|doi=10.17226/10139|isbn=978-0309075749|access-date=2012-02-14|archive-date=2011-06-05|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110605132107/http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10139&page=1|url-status=live|url-access=subscription}}, in {{harvnb|US NRC|2001|p=1}}</ref> "generally agrees" with the WGI assessment, and describes the full WGI report as an "admirable summary of research activities in climate science".<ref name="nap.edu">{{citation|title=Summary|url=http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10139&page=4|year=2001|doi=10.17226/10139|isbn=978-0309075749|access-date=2021-08-12|archive-date=2015-02-11|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150211194116/http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10139&page=4|url-status=live|url-access=subscription}}, in {{harvnb|US NRC|2001|p=4}}</ref>

IPCC author [[Richard Lindzen]] has made a number of criticisms of the TAR.<ref name="lindzen tar critique">{{citation|author=Lindzen, R.S.|title=Prepared Statement of Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in: S. Hrg. 107-1027 – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report. US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation|date=1 May 2001|url=http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action;jsessionid=YVs2R8KCJFXP2C3gFJrnBvxVXlFMnqHpQch0hJ0Qv4ZRT6n9GPTj!89600962!536161308?granuleId=CHRG-107shrg88709&packageId=CHRG-107shrg88709|location=Washington, DC|publisher=US Government Printing Office (GPO)|access-date=12 August 2021|archive-date=5 October 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181005045524/https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action;jsessionid=YVs2R8KCJFXP2C3gFJrnBvxVXlFMnqHpQch0hJ0Qv4ZRT6n9GPTj!89600962!536161308?granuleId=CHRG-107shrg88709&packageId=CHRG-107shrg88709|url-status=live}}, pp. 29–31. Available in [http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-107shrg88709/html/CHRG-107shrg88709.htm text] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181005022845/https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-107shrg88709/html/CHRG-107shrg88709.htm |date=2018-10-05 }} and [http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-107shrg88709/pdf/CHRG-107shrg88709.pdf PDF] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170707205220/https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-107shrg88709/pdf/CHRG-107shrg88709.pdf |date=2017-07-07 }} formats. Also available as a [http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/Testimony/Senate2001.pdf PDF] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200602145342/http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/Testimony/Senate2001.pdf |date=2020-06-02 }} from Professor Lindzen's website.</ref> Among his criticisms, Lindzen has stated that the WGI Summary for Policymakers (SPM) does not faithfully summarize the full WGI report.<ref name="lindzen tar critique" /> For example, Lindzen states that the SPM understates the uncertainty associated with [[global climate model|climate model]]s.<ref name="lindzen tar critique" /> [[John T. Houghton|John Houghton]], who was a co-chair of TAR WGI,<ref>{{citation|title=Preface|url=https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/07/WG1_TAR_FM.pdf|df=dmy-all|access-date=2021-08-12|archive-date=2022-08-29|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220829124925/https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/07/WG1_TAR_FM.pdf|url-status=live}}, in |IPCC TAR WGI 2001</ref> has responded to Lindzen's criticisms of the SPM.<ref name="houghton lindzen rebuttal">{{citation|title=The Great Global Warming Swindle. Programme directed by Martin Durkin, on Channel 4 on Thursday 8 March 2007. Critique by John Houghton, President, John Ray Initiative|url=http://www.jri.org.uk/news/Critique_Channel4_Global_Warming_Swindle.pdf|location=Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, UK|publisher=John Ray Initiative|access-date=12 August 2021|archive-date=5 August 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190805200016/http://www.jri.org.uk/news/Critique_Channel4_Global_Warming_Swindle.pdf|url-status=dead}}, p. 4.</ref> Houghton has stressed that the SPM is agreed upon by delegates from many of the world's governments, and that any changes to the SPM must be supported by scientific evidence.<ref name="houghton lindzen rebuttal" />

IPCC author [[Kevin Trenberth]] has also commented on the WGI SPM.<ref name="trenberth tar">{{citation|author=Trenberth K. E.|title=Stronger Evidence of Human Influence on Climate: The 2001 IPCC Assessment|date=May 2001|url=http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/trenberth.papers/human_inflEN.pdf|work=Environment|volume=43|issue=4|page=8 |publisher=Heldref|doi=10.1080/00139150109605136 |bibcode=2001ESPSD..43d...8T |access-date=2021-08-12|archive-date=2021-06-13|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210613152655/https://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/trenberth.papers/human_inflEN.pdf|url-status=live}}, p. 11.</ref> Trenberth has stated that during the drafting of the WGI SPM, some government delegations attempted to "blunt, and perhaps obfuscate, the messages in the report".<ref name="trenberth tar" /> However, Trenberth concludes that the SPM is a "reasonably balanced summary".<ref name="trenberth tar" />

US NRC (2001)<ref>{{citation|title=Ch 7 Assessing Progress in Climate Science|url=http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10139&page=22|year=2001|doi=10.17226/10139|isbn=978-0-309-07574-9|access-date=2012-02-14|archive-date=2012-02-25|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120225045922/http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10139&page=22|url-status=live|url-access=subscription}}, in {{harvnb|US NRC|2001|p=22}}</ref> concluded that the WGI SPM and Technical Summary are "consistent" with the full WGI report. US NRC (2001)<ref name="nap.edu" /> stated:
<blockquote>... the full [WGI] report is adequately summarized in the Technical Summary. The full WGI report and its Technical Summary are not specifically directed at policy. The Summary for Policymakers reflects less emphasis on communicating the basis for uncertainty and a stronger emphasis on areas of major concern associated with human-induced climate change. This change in emphasis appears to be the result of a summary process in which scientists work with policy makers on the document. Written responses from U.S. coordinating and lead scientific authors to the committee indicate, however, that (a) no changes were made without the consent of the convening lead authors (this group represents a fraction of the lead and contributing authors) and (b) most changes that did occur lacked significant impact.</blockquote>