Overview:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a UN-sponsored organization led by government scientists, but also involving several hundred academic scientists and researchers from many nations. Thus far, the IPCC has published four major reports--1990, 1992, 1994, and 1996--reviewing the latest climate science. These reports, however, do not represent the complete spectrum of scientific views; for example, the 1990 report admits that there was a minority--of unspecified size--whose views "could not be accommodated." The number of scientists expressing skepticism on the global warming issue continues to grow, despite efforts to marginalize them. They are also becoming more vocal. More than 4,000 scientists endorsed the Heidelberg Appeal, first circulated at the 1992 "Earth Summit" in Rio de Janeiro. More recently, nearly 100 climate experts have signed on to the Leipzig Declaration.
The items that follow deal with the lack of scientific consensus on global warming, and demonstrate the inconsistencies between the IPCC's "Summary for Policymakers"--a political document--and the main body of the 1996 report. Many of the items concern unannounced alterations made in the 1995 approved draft, prior to its printing in 1996.
We start with two items dating to 1992, and critiquing the 1992 IPCC reports. Item 1 is an analysis of discrepancies in the IPCC report; it appeared in eco·logic. Item 2 is the full executive summary of the 1992 SEPP report "The Greenhouse Debate Continued"
Item 3 is an analysis detailing the changes made in Chapter 8 of the 1995 IPCC report. Item 4 presents an article-and two letters --(by B.D. Santer & S.F. Singer) from The Energy Daily discussing the legitimacy and impact of these changes.
Similarly, Item 5 gives the widely quoted Op/Ed by Dr. Frederick Seitz in the June 12 issue of the Wall Street Journal, and a letter comment by S. Fred Singer. Item 6 is a letter to Nature commenting on their June 13 editorial. Item 7 , a letter to Science, comprehensively discusses the impact and significance of the alterations.
Item 8 is a record of the E-mail correspondence between B.D. Santer and S.F. Singer.
Item 9 is an Op/Ed, published in the Washington Times and other newspapers discussing a June 5 press conference held by IPCC in connection with their publication of the report "Climate Change 1995." Item 10 is a July 8 Op/Ed from the Wall Street Journal (Europe) discussing the problems in implementing the Global Climate Treaty and recommending that it be abandoned.
Item 11 gives the text of the Leipzig Declaration and lists the over 100 scientists who have signed as of this date. The Leipzig Declaration is based on a conference held in Leipzig in November 1995 to critically examine the evidence for climate warming.
Item 12 is a letter from Dr. Singer that was sent to a number of IPCC scientists, in which Dr. Singer expresses concern about the misuse of science and scientists by politicians.
Item 13 is a letter from Dr. Singer to Tom Wigley, a colleague of Ben Santer and Sir John Houghton, in which Dr. Singer responds to some questions that Mr. Wigley asked.
Item 14 is a letter from Dr. Singer to Undersecretary for Global Affairs Timothy Wirth, questioning him as to why he changed his position about legally-binding emission targets and timetables.
Item 15 is a letter to Prof. Bert Bolin, IPCC Chairman, notifying him of the letter sent to Timothy Wirth, and calling his attention to the political misuse of climate science and the IPCC report.
Item 16 : a letter sent to the editor of Chemical & Engineering News, in response to an article in their August 19 issue, which supported the actions of the IPCC.
Item 17 : a letter sent to the American Meteorological Society, in response to a small group of AMS & UCAR executives publishing an open letter of support to Ben Santer in the September 1996 issue of the Bulletin of the AMS. (Published in the January 1997 issue of the Bulletin.
Item 18 is a letter to the editor published in the journal Physics Today in July 1997.
Item 19 is a further letter to the editor of Physics Today, detailing the irregularities in the scientific evidence that is used to support the IPCC conclusion of "discernible human influence."
Item 20 is an exchange of letters following an article by S. Fred Singer in Eos, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. We conclude that there is no scientific basis, currently, for defining the goal of the Climate Treaty, i.e. to avoid a concentration of greenhouse gases that would be dangerous to the climate system. Hence, any goal that is set is arrived at politically rather than from a scientific basis.