I
i’)

! \,

A 51-WEEKLY REPORT ON GLOBAL C L I M A T E CHANGE
Volume I. No. 19
lune io, 1996

BAIT AND SWITCH?
IPCC pares down the consensus
he authors of the much-ballyhooed
United Nations report from the
lntergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC)-the one claiming the consensus of scientists across the globe is that
human-induced climate change is here-are
up to their old tricks, The IPCC has been a
frequent target of criticism, in both the
World Climate Reporr regarding the lack of
proper scientific peer review (WCR, Vol. 1.
No. 3) and in Congressional testimony relating to the IPCC’s bias toward omitting studies that provide balance to the impending
climate disaster viewpoint (testimony before
the Full House Science Committee, March 6.

The changes include the addition of
new material that had not undergone
scientific peer-review or been presented
to governments for their consideration
and the wholesale deletion o f previously accepted text. They go beyond mere
editorial improvements and actually
alter the information and intent of the
original document. The overall impact
is t o increase the appearance of scientific support for attribution of changes
in climate to human activities and to
eliminate or diminish what had been
clearly stated caveats and uncertainties
bearing on this issue.

1996).

These revisions raise very serious
questions about whether the IPCC has
compromised, or even lost, its scientific
integrity.... first, the changes were made
after [our italics] formal acceptance of
the reports by the relevant IPCC bodies.
Second, the changes quite clearly have
the obvious political purpose of cleansing the underlying scientific report o f
important information and scientific
analysis that would lead policymakers
and the public to be very cautious, i f

T

Another concerned group has joined the
fray. The Global Climate Coalition (GCC)
issued a memorandum May 17 regarding
illegal (based on IPCC rules) revisions to
the previously-approved and purported final
version of the IPCC text. This memo
focused on revisions made to the critical
Chapter 8. “Detection o f Climate Change
and Attribution o f Causes” authored by
B. D. Santer, T.M.L. Wigley, T.P. Barnett and
E. Anyamba. States the GCC:

occur? In light orthe’&’ large... u&e+ ’
tainties...it is not surprising that the best’
answer t o this question is,
know.‘ Some would have
detection of a significant c
has already occurred. Few
be willing to argue that u

1
i
.

this question must be s u b j d ~ %
Some scientists maintain that the@&%?
uncertainties

$~

not skeptical. about blaming human
activities for climate change over the
past century.
Here we provide a few examples of this
cleansing.
The “Concluding Summary“ of the
“accepted” version was removed in the revision. Not surprisingly, this summary contained some of the more cautious statements in the chapter:
Attribution of an observed climate
change to a particular mechanism can
be established only by testing competing hypotheses. Thus unique attribution of a ‘significant’ observed change
requires specifying the signals of all
likely alternative explanations, and statistical determination that none o f
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.
While some of the pattern-based studies discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no
study to date has positively attributed
all or part of that change to anthropogenic causes. Nor has any study
quantified the magnitude of a greenhouse-gas effect or aerosol effect in the
observed data-an issue that is of primary relevance to policymakers.
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.
The obvious net impact of removing all
statements of caution in interpreting the
IPCC conclusions is to leave the reader with
the impression that the so-called “consensus” is confident that human-induced climate change is here.
Similarly, regarding efforts to detect a

 COz-only signal in historic temperature
records, the statement "None of the studies
cited above has shown clear evidence that
we can attribute the observed changes to
the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases" was deleted.
The original "approved" report was skeptical of the ability of scientists to attribute
any portion of global-mean surface temperature trends to human influences. "While
none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue. they often
draw some attribution-related conclusions.
for which there is little justification." This
sentence was also deleted.
Furthermore, the original report contained
other statements of caution on the attribution question. "While such studies [comparing the ability of models to reproduce
observed temperature changes] help to
build confidence in the reliability of the
model...there are still serious concerns
about the [validation of the] longer time
scale variability.
Unless paleoclimatic data
can help us t o 'constrain' the century time
scale natural variability estimates obtained
from [Coupled General Circulation Models],
it will be difficult to make a convincing case
for the detection and attribution of an
anthropogenic climate change signal."
Deleted.
But most important, making this type OF
change to the text after the report was
accepted violates not only common-sense
principles but the rules under which the
IPCC operates. According to the GCC:

...

When important scientific information
is deleted from the underlying report
prepared by scientists, and when new
material is added, in order to conform
that report to the political views of
those anxious t o attribute climate
change to human activities, the resulting document is neither comprehensive,
nor balanced, nor objective ....[ The
requirement of a balanced presentation
in the IPCC] embodies the simple, ethical concept that scientific certainty
should tell both sides of the story in a
straightforward manner, rather than
obscuring views for the sake of political
expediency.
These alterations lend further credence to
the contention that, when all is said and
done, only a handful of the hundreds of
IPCC authors constitute the so-called "consensus" and that these chosen few wield
disproportionate editorial control over the
final report.
References
The IPCC Institutionalized -Scientific Cleansing." Global
Climate Coalition. Global Climate Coalition meqorandum.
Donald Rheem. M a y 17. 1996
lnlersovernmental Panel on Clmate Change 119961 Climafe
ChJnge 1 9 ~ 5The Scimce of Clmate Change. Cambridge
University Press

WHO CARES!
he World Health Organization (WHO)
released the results of its annual planetary health assessment May 21. The
prognosis? Not good. Although the checkup found some favorable news, the report
was full of foreboding, mentioning in particular that climate change "may allow some
disease to spread." The good news was all
in the past; the bad news reflected the
future, especially if the patient refused to
follow the prescriptions of WHO. Since the
devasiating impacts of climate change on
global health have become the latest clarion call of environmental apocalysts, this
issue requires scrutiny.
In a recent New 'fork City conference, less
cautious environmentalists claimed that
"global warming and a decline in the quality of the world's ecosystems are increasing
illnesses from water-borne organisms and
from diseases such as malaria, dengue
Fever and Lyme disease." Don Melnick, professor of anthropology and biological sciences at Columbia University and organizer
of the conference, pointed to an increase in
Lyme disease in the northeastern United
States, caused by a decrease in the number
of predators who stalk deer (he must have
been referring to hunters since nonhuman
predators of deer have not flourished in the
Northeast for over a hundred years) with
the result that contact between deer and
humans is more common than in the past.
The connection between a growth in the
deer and human populations in the
Northeast and climate change was left unexplained. Perhaps he meant that both thrived
under warmer conditions!
In reality, the health of the world's people
is improving. Over the last 35 years, the
world's death rate has been cut in half.
Life expectancy continues to grow to
unprecedented levels (figure I), and each
year infant mortality falls to record lows
(Figure 2). Today 86 percent of the world's
population lives in a country where newborns enjoy a life expectancy greater than
60 years, compared with six out of i o in
1980 (Figure 3). If your parents or grandparents were born in America before the
early 1930s. they were not expected to
make it to their sixth decade, a rarely

T

1
Life Expectancy at Birth

60
58

I980

I990

I995

figure 1. The world'$ population is livins longer than
ever. The average life expectancy a1 birth has increased
from 61 years in 1984 lo 65 yean in 19%.

I

Infant Monalitv Rate

2. Each year the world's Infant mortality rate
(deaths per 1000 births) reaches record low levels.

Figure

reported fact that President Roosevelt
leaned on to insure the solvency of
Social Security.
Smallpox, a major scourge prior to the
19th century, has been completely eliminated from the world. The last of the virus is
slated for execution in 1999. WHO predicts
that polio, which killed millions annually
before the development of a vaccine and
claimed just over 1oo.000 worldwide in
1990. can be wiped out by the end of the
century. The prevalence of leprosy-the
AIDS of the Middle Ages-was cut in half in
the decade of the 19805, as was tetanus in
infants. River blindness and guinea-worm
disease should be eliminated in the next
few years. The number of malaria deaths
worldwide has dropped since 1990.

I

Life Expectancy of 60 Years or More

~~~

~

~

~~

Figure 3. The number of counbies that have a popularJon
with an average Life expectancy of at leas1 60 years has
risen From 86 In 1980 to 110 In 1995.

There is. of course, much scope for
improvement. In the poorest countries, well
over a hundred of every thousand babies
die by the end of their first year, while in
the advanced countries, less than 7 per
thousand fail to celebrate their first birthday. Nearly one-third of the children under
5 in the developing countries were underweight. Although 80 percent of the world's
children have received vaccines for diphtheria, measles, whooping cough, polio,
tetanus and tuberculosis, in some African
countries less than half have been
immunized.
These problems, which are serious, are
related not to climate change hut to poverty. Blaming global warming for an increase
in malaria and dengue fever in Southeast
Asia, as Melnick did, is baseless. A warm
climate like that enjoyed in Southeast Asia
is a necessary condition for the mnsquitoes
that can carry malaria t o flourish; b u t it is
not a sufficient condition for malaria to
become endemic. Singapore, which is
located just z degrees from the Equator.

 reported no deaths from malaria in 1994.
Malaysia. just next door, suffers from
endemic malaria and dengue fever. The dif.
ference i s not the climate but the wealth of
the two areas.
Before 1940. malaria was widespread in
the southern portions of the United States.
Although sporadic cases are still diagnosed
north of the Mexican border, brought mostly
by travelers from abroad, the likelihood that
malaria will again secure a firm foothold in
this country is negligible. For a disease
spread by mosquitoes to become endemic,
a large number of hosts, that is, humans,
must carry the parasite. Simple precautions
can prevent the spawning of a residentaffected population. If people protect
themselves from mosquitoes by using
screens on their windows and doors, wearing long-sleeved clothing when outdoors,
and applying insect repellents containing
DEET, the virus cannot secure a foothold.
Environmentalists such as Melnick believe
the world should take action now to head
off further warming of the world's climate,
at leasf partly to slow or stop the spread of
these diseases. The cost of attempting to
slow the production of greenhouse gases,
which is rarely discussed, would be high.
Estimates by pro-environmental advocates
have ranged from 2.5 to 3.5 percent of
world GDP or roughly $500 billion to
$750 billion annually (Cline, 1992).
Yet, just a Fraction of this sum-spent to
improve health conditions-would do more
to eliminate sickness in poor countries than
any amount of industry restriction could.
Levying a carbon tax to quell a nonthreatening climate change would stifle global
productivity without significantly changing
the world's contagious disease picture. For
example, the WHO estimates the cost of
immunizing children against six major killers
at $14.60 per child-a total cost of around
$400 million annually to treat the 2 0 percent of the world's children who now go
without immunization. This modest expenditure could save millions of children's lives
immediately-for less than one-tenth of one
percent of the cost of slowing warming.
References
World Health Organization. World Yedllh Pepon. 1995 3nd

1996HcCool. G. 5 o b a I "arming
PeLlers. Mav 7. 1996.

linked

10

Disease :nuease:

Cline. N. 1992. Tire Econornrcs Ji
tiiooal WJrming.
'Nashington 3.C.. Institute tor ! n t e m ~ t i o n d Economics.
l

HECHO EN MEXICO:
POLLUTION WSES BLOODSUCKING.

w

e've read a lot lately that global
warming, caused by man's pollution, is spreading dread diseases,
but that's nothing compared with what's
happening in Mexico. The May g Mexico
City Times headlined that 'Goat-Sucker
Fever Sweeps the Nation" and that the myriad of dead chickens, cows, and even
goats-bloodless and punctured by Fangsmay be a result of. ..industry!
As noted in the May 11 Washington Post,
Mexico is awash with tales of h beast
standing three feet tall with a huge snout
and dark, velvety skin" that campesinos
claim is sucking the blood out of large animals. Not so, reports a team of Sinaloa
scientists ordered to find the cause. "One
explanation for these attacks could be that
animals have been driven mad by the devastating effects of poisonous g
toxic wastes on nature. k r h a p
happening now with the goat-su
nature's way of making us pay for the co
stant damage we have inflicted on the environment," said lavier Delgadillo. one of the
state scientists.

...

ReWashington Part May 11.199s.

T

he May 15 'Kim Hill Show." broadcast
live on New Zealand National Radio,
featured a discussion o f global warming and the United Nations Intergovemmental Panel on Climate Change OPCC) between
Kevin Trenberth. the head of climate analysis for the US. National Center for Atrnospheric Research (and, being a Kiwi, a
Fellow of the Royal Society of New
Zealand), and Patrick Michaels, editor of
this Repah Verbatim from the transcript:
HILL: Or. Trenberth. can I ask you. do you
regret the IPCC in some way either getting
off on the wrong track, exaggerating the situation. or being misrepresented in the
media, whatever? Are you unhappy with
the way the position has been reported?
TRENBERTH: Ah, well, not so much for the
1995 report. The 1995 report is about to
come outHILL: Well, let's stop-

3. 3.

TRENBERTH: And I think it is more-

********

HILL: -Can you give me a preview?

TRENBERTH: - I think it's more honest
than the 1990 report. The 1990 reportMICHAELS: Well, that's a remarkable statement. Kevin.
HILL: It's not a bad statement, actually.
Ten minutes later...
HILL: -Can you imagine a time in the
foreseeable future, and preferably in my
lifetime, where all the arguing will be over,
and we will have a definitive prospect?

...

TRENBERTH: I expect that the IPCC
process is apparently continuing. I wouldn't
be surprised if next time there is. at least
according t o Pat's interpretation, a further
decrease in the numbers that come out,
mainly because I think there are some problems in what happens in the models at very
high latitudes in the Arctic region.
MICHAELS: Yeah, that's been a problem forever, hasn't it?
TRENBERTH: Well

S

...

ince global temperatures through the
first several months o f 1996 have not
been behaving according t o classical
global warming theory 0.e. have been Fair1
cool; see 'Planet Watch"), environment
apocalysts must surely find a s
Mount Pinatubo just can't take
any longer. It blew its top alm
ago-which is a long time for s
aerosols t o remain i a place-and the warming it sidetracked since 1990 has supposedly once again begun ('1995: Warmest Year
on Record!").
So, what other household environmental
phenomenon could be fingered? The ozone
hole would probably have to shrink to cool
the earth-and we can't have that. How
about El Niiio/La NiRa? There has been an
extended E l Nifio event-no doubt due to
global warming-which is now starting to
break down and be replaced by a weak La
NiAa event. This must be the ticket. The
year 1996 has been cool so far. Cherchez
La NiAa!
(Note: if a La Nina event of such diminutive proportions as the current one actually
had such a large impact on global temperatures. the world would suffer through wild
climatic gyrations.)

 TEMPERATURE UPDATE

odd Climate Report provides
monthly updates of satellitemeasured temperatures
around the globe. These figures are
measured by a series of platforms
that sense mean temperatures of
various layers in the atmosphere.
The one we routinely display is the
lowest level, which matches perfectly
with the mean temperatures measured by weather balloons between
5.000 and 28.000 feet. The measurement IS thought to be accurate
to within o.oi°C.
We compare these temperatures
with surface values projected by the
climate models that based the 1992
Framework Convention on Climate
Change (the "Rio Treaty"). Although
it is difficult to strictly compare
surface projections and mean layer
temperatures, the satellite provides
great improvement over the surface
record by supplying data over the
entire planet.

W

April 1996: The global temperature
departure from average is up about
0.08OC from last month, although it

still remains below the long-term
normal by o.ii°C. April marks the
5th month in a row that the global
temperature has been below normal.
The year 1996 still looks like it is
going to be a particularly cool year,
a fact that will keep global warmers
scrambling for an excuse.

The slight increase over last month
was caused primarily by a 0.31OC
jump in the temperature departure
of the Southern Hemisphere, which
more than offset a rather chilly
month in the Northern Hemisphere.
The greatest positive temperature
anomalies are found i n the Southern
high latitudes, with temperature
departures of more than +z°C found
across Antarctica and off the southern tip of Africa.
In the Northern Hemisphere, several extensive areas of large negative
temperature anomalies are present.
The former Soviet Union experienced
an unusually cold month with temperature anomalies exceeding - 5 O C
in some locations. Departures of
more than -3OC were not uncommon
over many portions of the North
Pacific as well. One rather large
warm anomaly is found over
Greenland, where temperatures were
as much as t 5 O C warmer than normal. This pattern of warmth over
Greenland and coolness over North
America and Asia is a continuation of
the jet stream pattern we described
last month (see Planet Watch, Vol. 1,
No. 17) and is largely responsible for
the rather active weather that has
been occurring this spring.

I

.

/

Iughht: Satellite-sensed ternpentuns for the
Western Hemisphere (above) and Eastern
Hemisphen (below). Areas of below-normal tempentun are shaded.

NORTHERN HEMISPHERE

R E P O R T

,

S T A F F

Rtrick I. Michaek
Robert E. Daws
Thomas Gale Moore

Chief Edifor

Amy Lcmlcy

Copy Ediror

f i u l C Knappenbcrqer

Technical Supervtsor

Associare Editor
Health m d Economics Edilor

I

S0CTHER.L HELllSPHERE