Big Picture News, Informed Analysis

Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise. Former National Post & Toronto Star columnist, past vice president of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

Crucial Climate Verdict, Fledgling Evidence

SPOTLIGHT: History’s most momentous climate decision was based on research so preliminary it wasn’t published in a scientific journal until seven months later.

BIG PICTURE: In 1995, a 40-year-old climate modeller named Ben Santer was in charge of Chapter 8 of the UN’s upcoming Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. Nothing in the other 49 chapters mattered more than the question his team was expected to answer: Was global climate change wholly natural – or was it partially caused by human activity?

In Searching for the Catastrophe Signal, Bernie Lewin explains that Chapter 8 relied partly on research papers that hadn’t yet been published. The larger scientific community had had no chance to examine them, test them, or reflect on their significance.

After a year’s work involving three dozen people, Chapter 8 concluded that because scientists don’t understand the extent to which climate fluctuates naturally, it isn’t possible to tell if humans are having an effect. Asked when human influence might be detected, the authors declared: “We don’t know.”

But then matters took a sharp turn. Late in the process, Santer presented fresh findings to an IPCC meeting, arguing that he’d identified a human ‘fingerprint’ in the temperature data. Lewin says Santer’s claims were “vigorously opposed by several experts.” Nevertheless, the text of Chapter 8 was changed and a copy of the new version was leaked to the New York Times. Its front page proclaimed a breakthrough.

At a follow-up meeting that November, despite additional internal protests, the IPCC adopted a new position: “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.” Note the tentative wording: Suggests. Balance of evidence. There’s nothing clear-cut here. This was a judgment call.

Lewin calls this the “most important line of any IPCC report.” Without this last minute change, the IPCC would have concluded three times in a row that it could find no sign that humans were altering the climate. That would have been highly inconvenient since a UN treaty orchestrating action against dangerous, human-caused climate change had been adopted back in 1992.

The research that tipped the balance was so preliminary it wasn’t submitted to a scientific journal until four months after the November meeting and wasn’t published until July 1996.

TOP TAKEAWAY: When making its most important decisions, the IPCC relies on unpublished research that hasn’t been seen, examined, or tested by the larger scientific community.


Searching for the Catastrophe Signal: The Origins of The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Bernie Lewin

please support this blog
please support this blog

→ Receive posts via e-mail by signing up on the right side of this page, above –  or by following this blog on Facebook and Twitter.
→ Download or e-mail a PDF of this post by clicking the Print button under Share This below – then select the blue arrow beside PDF at the bottom left.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email