The Chapter 8 controversy is part of the global warming conspiracy discourse ^[1] and is used by climate skeptics to challenge the veracity of anthropogenic climate change. The controversy originally took place in the media, not in the scientific literature. It began in June 1996, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change relesed their Second Assessment Report (1995). Chapter 8 of the report was concerned with the science of climate change. According to science historian Naomi Oreskes, when the IPCC released their report, the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), a coalition of American business interests that oppose climate change mitigation, ^[2] alleged that the lead author of Chapter 8, Benjamin D. Santer, made "unauthorized" changes that eliminated the uncertainty of global warming. ^[3]

Shortly after the GCC released their IPCC critique and just weeks before COP 2, the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Geneva, Switzerland‎, ^[4] physicist Frederick Seitz of the George C. Marshall Institute wrote an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal decrying the accuracy of the science in the IPCC report. ^[5] Santer, an atmospheric scientist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), and John Houghton, co-chair of the IPCC, dismissed the allegations as unfounded. According to Santer, the efforts of the GCC and other critics appeared to be a "skillful campaign to discredit the IPCC, me and my reputation as a scientist." ^[2]

Background

In 1990, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released their first report, noting uncertainty with regards to the role and importance of anthropogenic climate change. The second IPCC report, developed in 1995 and released in 1996, changed this conclusion, saying that while natural variability could explain observed temperature changes, "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate". As a result, leaders around the world began discussing plans to control the use of fossil fuels and to replace them with cleaner energy sources like renewable energy. ^[6]

Campaign

In the wake of the controversy, a letter writing campaign targeted the United States Congress and the United States Department of Energy, asking Congress to start an investigation into the incident and requesting that the Energy Department stop funding the LLNL, Santer's workplace. ^[3]

Analysis

Oreskes concludes that Santer did not make any unauthorized changes to the IPCC report, and that Santer's modifications were made "in response to peer review". "He was doing what every scientist is expected to do - and what IPCC rules required him to do - accepting criticism and using it to make the science clearer". ^[3]

Use

The Chapter 8 controversy is commonly used by climate skeptics to challenge the accuracy of the IPCC report and the basis of anthropogenic climate change. ^[7]

See also

• Roger Revelle controversy
• Soon and Baliunas controversy
• Hockey stick controversy
• Climatic Research Unit email controversy
• Attorney General of Virginia's climate science investigation

Notes

References

• Bolin, B. (2007). A History of the Science and Politics of Climate Change: The Role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN  0521088739.
• Edwards, P. N., Schneider, S. H. (2001). Self-Governance and Peer Review in Science-for-Policy: The Case of the IPCC Second Assessment Report. In C. A. Miller and P. N. Edwards (Ed.), Changing the Atmosphere: Expert Knowledge and Environmental Governance (pp. 219-246). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN  0262632195.
• Lahsen, M. (1999). The Detection and Attribution of Conspiracies: The Controversy Over Chapter 8. In G. E. Marcus (Ed.), Paranoia Within Reason: A Casebook on Conspiracy as Explanation (pp. 111-136). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. ISBN  0226504581.
• Controversy erupts over climate report. (July 6, 1996). Science News, p. 15.
• Conway, E., Oreskes, N. (June 1, 2010). Climate change denial: a history. New Statesman. Print version published 31 May, 2010. p. 34.
• Houghton, J. (2008). Madrid 1995: Diagnosing climate change: John Houghton chaired the tense IPCC meeting without which there would be no Kyoto Protocol. Here he recalls how science won the day. Nature. 455(7214), p. 737.
• Masood, E. (June 13, 1996). Climate report "subject to scientific cleansing". Nature 381(6583), p. 546.
• Oreskes, N. (2010). Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. Bloomsbury Press. ISBN  978-1-59691-610-4.
• Singer, F. (June 11, 1996). Coverup in the Greenhouse? The Wall Street Journal.
• Seitz, F. (June 12, 1996). Major deception on global warming. The Wall Street Journal. 227(115), p. A16. ISSN  00999660 Parameter error in {{ issn}}: Invalid ISSN.
• Skodvin, T. (2000). Causal Relationship: Real or Spurious? Structure and Agent in the Scientific Diplomacy of Climate Change: An Empirical Case Study of Science-Policy Interaction in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 5. Springer. ISBN  0792366379.
• Weart, S. (2011). Global warming: How skepticism became denial. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 67(1), 41-50. doi: 10.1177/0096340210392966