LOBAL CLIMATE COALITION October 22, 1996 Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell Executive Director United Nations Environment Program 15 chemin des An?mones, CH 1219?Chatelaine, Geneva Switzerland Dear Madame Director: As an industry member who has been involved in activities undertaken by Jacqueline Aloisi de Larderel, I read with regret your recent attack on industry critics of the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) at the IPCC meeting in Mexico City on September 13, 1996. By attacking the motives of the Global Climate Coalition and other industry groups, you unnecessarily polarize an already contentious debate and make future collaborative action between government and industry organizations even more difficult. The concerns we have expressed are serious that substantial deletions and other significant changes were made to the scientific material in the Second Assessment dealing with the highly controversial issue of whether there has been human-induced change in the Earth?s climate, and that these changes were made afte_r acceptance and approval of this material by the relevant IPCC bodies. The revised version was never re?submitted to the IPCC for reapproval. These changes, affecting more than 15 sections of Chapter 8 of the report, were neither cosmetic nor minor; the entire ?Concluding Summary? of the chapter was deleted, including such caveats as the following: 0 ?None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.? 0 ?No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change observed to date to anthropogenic [man?made] causes.? 0 ?Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of [the] climate system are reduced.? 1331 Avenue, NW - Suite 1500 North Tower - Washington, DC 20004-1 703 Telephone: (202) 637-3162 - Fax: (202) 638-1043 - Fax: (202) 838-1032 Letter to E. Dowdeswell October 22, 1996 Page 2 0 Attribution of an observed climate change to a particular mechanism [such as human activities] can be established only by testing competing hypotheses. Thus unique attribution of a ?significant? change requires specifying the signals of all likely alternative explanations, and statistical determination that none of these mechanisms is a satisfactory explanation for the observed change. This is a difficult task, and one that detection studies to date have not addressed in a rigorous statistical way. The net effect of removing these caveats is to undercut what Working Group I scientists thought they were doing when they accepted the ?final? language in Madrid. The version of Chapter 8 accepted by Working Group 1 and the full IPCC called attention to important scientific investigations that will be necessary in order to draw conclusions about attributing climate change to human activities. The original Chapter 8 made plain that those investigations have yet to take place. Nothing in the IPCC Rules permits or contemplates that anybody, regardless of position, has the right to change the underlying report of the IPCC scientists once it has been accepted by the working group. If those who changed the report were to now argue that IPCC procedures can reasonably be interpreted to allow such alterations, the rules should be changed. When important scientific information is deleted from the underlying report prepared by scientists, and when new material is added, apparently to conform that report to the political views of those anxious to attribute climate change to human activities, the resulting document is neither comprehensive, nor balanced, nor objective. The fact that the lead author of Chapter 8 and IPCC co-chair have refused to make public the comments that have been asserted to be the basis of these changes only increases suspicions about motivation. This sad departure from IPCC protocol led Frederick Seitz, president emeritus of Rockefeller University and chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute to write: ?In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process.? Despite this serious breach of scientific protocol, it is never too late for corrective action. I was encouraged by your Mexico City offer to seek scientific resolution of what ought to have remained a scientific issue: he IPCC is the forum for assessing climate change, and I repeat my invitation to those with scientific credentials who are unconvinced by the Second Assessment Report to work with the panel in the search for a universally-accepted truth.? L. ?jug.? ..-. a4 . Letter to E. Dowdeswell October 22, 1996 Page 3 I endorse the spirit of that invitation I also want to make you aware of a suggestion I have made that the US. National Academy of Sciences be asked to set up a task force to objectively review the state of science on climate change. Its assessment of the adequacy of research on water vapor, oceans, solar activity, and other key ?ndings of the Second Assessment Report would be an excellent place to start, particularly as those issues affect the findings of Working Group I, Chapter 8. Such a review could help to reduce the contentious nature of many discussions about the Working Group I report. Certainly there is much careful work to be done, not only in climate science but also in economic and policy matters. The choice is not between action and inaction. It is between ?exible, cost-effective, long-term policies based on a solid scientific foundation and short- sighted efforts to prematurely limit near-term emissions in developedxnations. That would cause serious economic damage without demonstrable benefits to the climate system. Many believe that the anonymous redactors of chapter 8 were attempting to promote this short-sighted course of action when they altered the final text to reduce uncertainties. I hope you would agree that the record needs to be set straight so that policy makers can take informed action. Certainly, it does no good to attack those of us who raised this matter, for an attack cannot change the science nor settle a doubtful public?s mind. I urge you therefore to support a positive course of action, such as an independent review of the Working Group I report by the National Academy of Sciences, so that that any doubt will be removed about future IPCC reports and activities. William . O?Kee .1 cc: The Honorable Timothy Wirth Dr. Bert Bolin Sir John Houghton Dr. Benjamin Santer