Content deleted Content added
m link adaptation |
Rescuing 2 sources and tagging 0 as dead.) #IABot (v2.0.9.5 |
||
Line 84:
[[Kevin E. Trenberth]], a lead author of the 2001 IPCC Working Group I report, wrote:
<blockquote>The rationale here is that the scientists determine what can be said, but the governments determine how it can best be said.. ... The IPCC process is dependent on the good will of the participants in producing a balanced assessment. However, in Shanghai, it appeared that there were attempts to blunt, and perhaps obfuscate, the messages in the report. ... In spite of these trials and tribulations, the result is a reasonably balanced consensus summary. ...<ref>{{citation
| author=Trenberth K. E.
| date=May 2001
Line 94 ⟶ 93:
| publisher=Heldref
| url=http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/trenberth.papers/human_inflEN.pdf
| access-date=2013-04-30
| archive-date=2021-06-13
</ref></blockquote>▼
| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210613152655/https://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/trenberth.papers/human_inflEN.pdf
| url-status=dead
▲ }}, p.11.</ref></blockquote>
IPCC author [[Richard Lindzen]] has made a number of criticisms of the IPCC.<ref name="lindzen tar critique">{{citation|title=Prepared Statement of Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in: S. Hrg. 107-1027 - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report. US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation|date=1 May 2001|url=http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action;jsessionid=YVs2R8KCJFXP2C3gFJrnBvxVXlFMnqHpQch0hJ0Qv4ZRT6n9GPTj!89600962!536161308?granuleId=CHRG-107shrg88709&packageId=CHRG-107shrg88709|author=Lindzen, R.S.|location=Washington, DC|publisher=US Government Printing Office (GPO)}}, pp.29-31. Available in [http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-107shrg88709/html/CHRG-107shrg88709.htm text] and [http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-107shrg88709/pdf/CHRG-107shrg88709.pdf PDF] formats. Also available as a [http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/Testimony/Senate2001.pdf PDF] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200602145342/http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/Testimony/Senate2001.pdf |date=2020-06-02 }} from Professor Lindzen's website.</ref> Among his criticisms, Lindzen has stated that the WGI Summary for Policymakers (SPM) does not faithfully summarize the full WGI report.<ref name="lindzen tar critique"/>
<blockquote>The report is prefaced by a policymakers' summary written by the editor, Sir [[John T. Houghton|John Houghton]], director of the United Kingdom Meteorological Office. His summary largely ignores the uncertainty in the report and attempts to present the expectation of substantial warming as firmly based science.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html |title=Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus |publisher=Cato.org |access-date=2012-11-25 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121214092858/http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html |archive-date=2012-12-14 |url-status=dead }}</ref></blockquote>
Lindzen has stated that the SPM understates the uncertainty associated with [[global climate model|climate model]]s.<ref name="lindzen tar critique"/> John Houghton has responded to Lindzen's criticisms of the SPM.<ref name="houghton lindzen rebuttal">{{citation
| |||