Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.


Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe

Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...

New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts


The consensus-building process of the IPCC

What the science says...

The IPCC operates by consensus.  Ben Santer could not have and did not single-handedly alter the 1995 IPCC report.  Accusations to the contrary are simply an attempt to re-write history.

Climate Myth...

Ben Santer rewrote the 1995 IPCC report

"However, a single scientist, Dr. Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, rewrote the draft at the IPCC’s request, deleting all five statements, replacing them with a single statement to the effect that a human influence on global climate was now discernible, and making some 200 consequential amendments. These changes were considered by a political contact group, but they were not referred back to the vast majority of the authors whose texts Dr. Santer had tampered with, and whose five-times-stated principal conclusion he had single-handedly and unjustifiably negated." (Christopher Monckton)

Citizen's Challenge has documented the actual events involving the statement in the 1995 IPCC report attributing global warming to human effects, as did the late Stephen Schneider in his excellent book Science as a Contact Sport.

What actually happened is that the scientific literature at the time clearly showed a number of 'fingerprints' of human-caused global warming, as Dr. Ben Santer showed.  The Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti delegations - for obvious reasons - claimed this was 'bad science', and were joined by a few delegates from other small countries like Kenya.  As a result of the disagreement, a Contact Group was held to negotiate the language that would eventually go into the report.

The Saudis and Kuwaitis did not even send representatives to the Contact Group - they were uninterested in discussing the science.  A Kenyan scientist joined the group, which discussed the scientific evidence, and agreed that a clear human signal could be found in the observational data.  When the Kenyan joined the group calling for this language to be included in the report, the Saudis and Kuwaitis finally dropped their opposition, and the language attributing global warming to human effects was added into the report (by consensus).

Santer was subsequently slandered by Frederick Seitz in an opinion-editorial published in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ).  Seitz did not participate in the IPCC process in question, and yet originated this myth by accusing Santer of single-handedly re-writing the report.  The IPCC chairman and co-chairmen subsequently sent a letter to the WSJ noting that Seitz's accusations were "completely without foundation."

It was not a matter of one scientist re-writing the IPCC report.  That's not how the organization functions; it's a consensus document.  As the first link above discusses, there are now many clear fingerprints of global warming, so why this argument 16 years ago is relevant to the science today is a mystery.

Last updated on 23 February 2012 by dana1981. View Archives

Printable Version  |  Offline PDF Version  |  Link to this page

Argument Feedback

Please use this form to let us know about suggested updates to this rebuttal.


Comments 1 to 1:

  1. It is also worth looking at the original backing for Santer from his colleagues and others, in response to the original attack using this fallacy which came from Frederick Seitz all the way back in June 1996 - he could obviously see that Global Warming obfuscation was the next step after the tobacco one he'd previously been involved with. Amazing when you think how long these people have been attacking and misinforming, and yet they still haven't been able to come up with anything substantial - they just resurrect the same old zombies time and time again.

Post a Comment

Political, off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. Comments Policy...

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

Link to this page

The Consensus Project Website


(free to republish)

© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us