OPEN LETTER TO BEN SANTER

25 July 1996

Dr. Benjamin D. Santer

PCMDI, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
PO. Box 808, Mail Stop L-264

Livermore, CA 94550

Dear Ben:

On behalf of the Executive Committee of the American Meteorological
Society and the Trustees of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
(UCAR), we take this opportunity to support .you and the other scientists who
have participated in the preparation of the recent IPCC report Climate Change
Science of Climate Change. We are aware of the tremendous effort
you and other climate scientists from many countries around the world have put
into this document, and the thought, care and objectivity which have
characterized the process throughout.

We believe that attacks on the IPCC process in general, and you in
particular, such as occurred in the editorial-page piece in The Wall Street journal
by Frederick Seitz (Attachment 1), have no place in the scientific debate about
issues related to global change. Dr. Seitz is a prominent scientist, but his
expertise is not atmospheric sciences and he was not involved in the IPCC
process. The Wall Street Iourrzal essay is especially disturbing because it steps
over the boundary from disagreeing with the science to attacking the honesty
and integrity of a particular scientist, namely yourself.

There appears to be a concerted and 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. Rather
than carrying out a legitimate scientific debate through the peer?reviewed
literature, they are waging in the public media a vocal campaign against
scientific results with which they disagree.

We believe that it is important to separate two issues. The first one is the
scientific question of how and why climate changes. The second question is, if

Open Letter to Ben Santer
25 July 1996
Page 2

the climate is changing and humans are causing part of this change, then what
should societies do about it. The appropriate arena for debating the first,
scientific question is through peer-reviewed scientific the
media. However, the appropriate arenas for debating the second question of
public policy are the media and political fora, because answering the second
question is inherently a public and political process. And it is the responsibility
of the scientific community to participate in the public and policy processes as
well as in the scientific process.

The recent exchange in The Wall Street journal is an example of why
attempting to carry out a scientific debate in the media is inappropriate. In
response to the Seitz opinion. piece, you and 40 other scientists prepared a
careful, thoughtful response, which is reprinted in its entirety below
(Attachment 2). This letter was printed in 18 Wall Street Journal with minor
changes, but without the names of the 40 distinguished scientists who
supported your rebuttal, including the other three lead co-authors of Chapter 8.

More significantly, a letter supporting you (Attachment 3) from Dr. Bert
Bolin, Chairman of the LPCC, and Co-chairs of Working Group I Drs. John
Houghton from the United Kingdom and Luiz Gylvan Meira Filho from Brazil
which strongly supported your letter was edited so severely that less than half of
the original letter was published. Eliminated from the original version was the
crucial part explaining the IPCC review process (which was the stated basis for
the Seitz attack) and the key, reviewed and agreed-upon conclusion ?our ability to
quantify the human in?uence on global climate is currently the
balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human in?uence on global
climate.?

This example illustrates why essays based upon Opinion and other
communications in the media or other forms of popular public debate are
inappropriate mechanisms for legitimate scientific debate. Letters and opinion
pieces can be written by any individual, and one opinion piece can carry as
much or more weight in the public's mind as a letter signed by 40 scientists who
have passed scientific muster over many years by publishing on the topic in the
peer-reviewed literature. By necessity, letters and opinion pieces in the public
media must be short, simple and non?technical, and supporting scientific data
or theories cannot be provided. Contributions to the public media are not
reviewed by scientific experts and can make assertions and statements that are
totally without scientific foundation. And finally, key parts may be edited or
removed altogether, leading to the possibility that serious changes to the
meaning of the contribution may be introduced.

Open Letter to Ben Santer
25 July 1996
Page 3

The larger debate related to what actions should be taken by the nation
and the world in response to global change will take place in the public and
political fora; and it is our responsibility as scientists to take an appropriate role
in that larger debate, as you and others have done. What is important scientific
information and how it is interpreted in the policy debates is an important part
of our jobs. We appreciate your efforts in this respect as well. That is, after all,
the very reason for the mix of science and policy in the IPCC.

In summary, we restate our strong support for the integrity and openness
of the IPCC process and for you and the many other scientists of diverse views
who have participated objectively and in good faith in providing this valuable
assessment of the state of our knowledge about climate change.

Sincerely,

Dr. Susan K. Avery 3 Dr. Paul D. 
Chairwoman President
UCAR Board of Trustees American Meteorological Society

madam; 
Dr. Richard A. Anthes Dr. Richard E. Hallgren
President Executive Director
University Corporation American Meteorological Society

for Atmospheric Research

Attachments as noted in text of letter

cc: Dr. Frederick Seitz