Editing IPCC Second Assessment Report (section)

==Chapter 8: Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes==
In the IPCC process, a "convening lead author" for each chapter worked with other lead authors and contributing authors to agree the structure of the chapter, and assign teams of scientists to write each section of the chapter, producing a draft which was subject to acceptance by the whole author group. Participating governments then provided review comments on the draft, incorporated into the assessment which was presented to seek acceptance at a plenary session of the IPCC.<ref name="rive rebuttal of seitz"/><ref name="MoD">{{cite book |first1=Naomi |last1=Oreskes |author1-link=Naomi Oreskes |first2=Erik M. |last2=Conway |title=Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming  |url=https://archive.org/details/merchantsofdoubt00ores |url-access=registration |year=2010 |publisher=[[Bloomsbury Publishing]] |isbn=978-1-59691-610-4 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/merchantsofdoubt00ores/page/200 200–208]}}</ref>

The IPCC chairman [[Bert Bolin]] had difficulty finding a convening lead author for Chapter 8. After delays, [[Benjamin D. Santer]] who was doing postdoctoral research on the topic was persuaded to take on the task. Twenty participants from various countries met at the initial meeting in [[Livermore, California]], in August 1994 to identify the scientific topic areas, and discussion continued by email. At the first drafting session (in [[Sigtuna]], Sweden, in October) Santer persuaded the others that the chapter should discuss observational and model uncertainties, though these were also covered in other chapters. The "zeroth" draft was then sent out for peer review to scientific topic experts, all the chapter authors and lead authors of other chapters. Their responses were incorporated in the second drafting session in March 1995 at [[Brighton]]. In May the entire draft Working Group I report as well as the summary for policymakers was submitted for full "country review" by participating governments, to provide comments for incorporation at the third drafting session at [[Asheville, North Carolina]], in July. Because of the delayed timing, Santer did not receive government comments for this meeting, some did not arrive until the plenary meeting in November.<ref name="MoD" />

The Chapter 8 draft report put together on 5 October had an Executive Summary of the evidence, and after various qualifications, said "Taken together, these results point towards a human influence on climate." Governments at the November plenary meeting in [[Madrid]] demanded changes to how this was worded in the Summary for Policymakers, after extended discussions Bolin suggested the adjective "discernible" and this was agreed. The approved Summary for Policymakers includes a section headed "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate", setting out progress in detection and attribution studies, cautioning that "Our ability to quantify the human influence on global climate is currently limited because the expected signal is still emerging from the noise of natural variability, and because there are uncertainties in key factors." Santer was subsequently required by the IPCC to bring the rest of the chapter into compliance with this wording.<ref name=ucarquarterly /><ref>IPCC Second Assessment Report: [http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sar/wg_I/ipcc_sar_wg_I_full_report.pdf Climate Change 1995, WG1] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111015170030/http://ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sar/wg_I/ipcc_sar_wg_I_full_report.pdf |date=2011-10-15 }}. Summary for Policymakers, pp. 4–5</ref> The summary at the start of the accepted version of the chapter stated that "these results indicate that the observed trend in global mean temperature over the past 100 years is unlikely to be entirely natural in origin. More importantly, there is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcings by greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols in the observed climate record. Taken together, these results point towards a human influence on global climate." The final paragraph in the chapter stated "The body of statistical evidence in Chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on global climate." An introductory preface to the SAR written by IPCC chairman Bolin and his co-chairs [[John T. Houghton]] and [[L. Gylvan Meira Filho]] highlighted "that observations suggest 'a discernible human influence on global climate', one of the key findings of this report, adds an important new dimension to discussion of the climate issue."<ref>IPCC Second Assessment Report: Climate Change 1995, WG1. ch 8, summary, pp. 412, 439, xi</ref>

Prior to the publication of the Second Assessment Report, the industry group [[Global Climate Coalition]] distributed a report entitled "The IPCC: Institutionalized Scientific Cleansing" to reporters, US Congressmen, and scientists, which said that Santer had altered the text, after acceptance by the Working Group, and without approval of the authors, to strike content characterizing the uncertainty of the science.<ref name="MoD" /> Three weeks later, and a week after the Second Assessment Report was released, the Global Climate Coalition was echoed in a letter published in [[Wall Street Journal|''The Wall Street Journal'']] from the retired [[condensed matter physics|condensed matter physicist]] and former president of the [[US National Academy of Sciences]], [[Frederick Seitz]], chair of the [[George C. Marshall Institute]] and [[Science and Environmental Policy Project]], but not a climatologist. In this letter, Seitz alleged that Santer had perpetrated "a disturbing corruption of the peer-review process." Seitz criticized the conclusions of Chapter 8, and wrote that "key changes were made after the scientists had met and accepted what they thought was the final peer-reviewed version", deleting "hints of the skepticism" he attributed to other unnamed scientists.<ref name="rive rebuttal of seitz"/><ref>Seitz, F. (12 June 1996). [http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/WSJ_June12.pdf Major deception on global warming] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130530143316/http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/WSJ_June12.pdf |date=2013-05-30 }}, ''Wall Street Journal''. p. A16.</ref><ref>Lahsen, M. (1999). The Detection and Attribution of Conspiracies: The Controversy Over Chapter 8. In [[George E. Marcus|G. E. Marcus]] (Ed.), ''Paranoia Within Reason: A Casebook on Conspiracy as Explanation'' (pp. 111–136). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. {{ISBN|0-226-50458-1}}.</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=The greenhouse spin |last=Helvarg |first=David |author-link=David Helvarg |magazine=[[The Nation]] |date=December 16, 1996 |volume=263 |issue=20 |pages=21–24 |access-date=February 10, 2016 |url=https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/212/45418.html |archive-date=February 16, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160216035849/https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/212/45418.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

The position of the lead author of Chapter 8, Benjamin D. Santer, was supported by fellow IPCC authors and senior figures of the [[American Meteorological Society]] (AMS) and [[University Corporation for Atmospheric Research]] (UCAR).<ref name=ucarquarterly>{{cite web|date=25 July 1996|title=Special insert—An open letter to Ben Santer|publisher=UCAR Quarterly|editor=Rasmussen, C.|url=http://www.ucar.edu/communications/quarterly/summer96/insert.html|access-date=24 June 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060626011156/http://www.ucar.edu/communications/quarterly/summer96/insert.html|archive-date=26 June 2006|url-status=dead}}</ref> The presidents of the AMS and UCAR stated that there was a "systematic effort by some individuals to undermine and discredit the scientific process that has led many scientists working on understanding climate to conclude that there is a very real possibility that humans are modifying Earth's climate on a global scale."<ref name=ucarquarterly />

Other rebuttals of Seitz's comments include a 1997 paper<ref name=edwardsschneider>{{cite web|year=1997|title=The 1995 IPCC Report: Broad Consensus or "Scientific Cleansing"?|publisher=Ecofable/Ecoscience, 1:1 (1997), pp. 3–9|author1=Edwards, P.|author2=S. Schneider|name-list-style=amp|url=http://www.pne.people.si.umich.edu/PDF/ecofables.pdf|access-date=24 June 2009|archive-date=20 January 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100120021258/http://pne.people.si.umich.edu/PDF/ecofables.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> by Paul Edwards and IPCC author [[Stephen Schneider (scientist)|Stephen Schneider]], and a 2007 complaint to the UK [[broadcast regulation|broadcast regulator]] [[Ofcom]] about the television programme, "[[The Great Global Warming Swindle]]".<ref name="rive rebuttal of seitz">
{{Cite book
 | chapter=Ch. 2: Complete Transcript and Rebuttal
 | title = Complaint to Ofcom Regarding "The Great Global Warming Swindle"
 | at=[http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net/FullComplaint/p94.htm Sec. 2.12: Conspiracy Theory About the IPCC]
 }}, in {{harvnb|Rive|Jackson|Rado|Marsh|2007|pp=94–95}}
</ref> The 2007 complaint includes a rebuttal of Seitz's claims by the former IPCC chairman, [[Bert Bolin]].<ref>
{{Cite book
 | chapter=Appendix G: Professor Bert Bolin’s Peer Review Comments
 | title = Complaint to Ofcom Regarding "The Great Global Warming Swindle"
 | at=[http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net/FullComplaint/p165.htm#APXG Comment 9 (Comment 114 in the current document)]
 
}}, in {{harvnb|Rive|Jackson|Rado|Marsh|2007|pp=165–166}}
</ref>