The scientists and the apocalypse - Climate Change: The Facts - page 178

From the Chair, Houghton told the assembled delegates that there had been new
positive developments in the science of detection which the coordinating lead author of
Chapter 8, Ben Santer, would explain in an extended presentation. This concluded with
Santerannouncingthatthechapter,aswritten,wasout-of-date.ThenHoughtonestablished
a side-group to draft an update of the working group's findings.
When this procedure was challenged, there was a ruling from the Chair. This was
challenged again and Bolin lent his support. A Saudi delegate protested that during his
six-year involvement with the IPCC the underlying report had always been the authority
for the summary. But now it appeared that the rules had changed. Indeed, they had.
In the short history of the IPCC there had always been pressure to bring the report
into alignment with some agreement on the floor. But this was always met with strong
resistancefromtheChair.Ofcourse,therewasSundsvalllasttimearound.But,evenasthe
Saudis protested inMadrid, there remained anunresolved dispute inthe reformed Working
Group III.
For the Second Assessment, this cursed working group was asked to delve into the
neglected economic dimensions. Troubled from the beginning, the approval plenary broke
down,wasreconvened,butthecrisiscontinuedovercallstochangeachapter.Theproblem
was in the estimations ofclimate change damages, where the value ofa life among the rich
was taken as ten times greater than among the poor—where most deaths were expected.
Moreover, devaluing the poor so reduced the damages that this was seen to justify the
air-conditioned rich doing nothing about their continuing impacts on the rest. This 'price
of life' controversy broke out at COP1, where it exacerbated the rich/poor polarisation
and embarrassed the IPCC just as its interim advisory role expired. And it would continue
even after the Working Group I plenary in Madrid, with calls to break the deadlock by
chapter changes only met by the authors' refusals upheld by the Chair. 37 At Madrid it was
a different story. There, the call to break with the science-to-policy process came from the
Chair.
The new developments Santer presented to delegates in Madrid were from his own
recent and unpublished work. While assessing their implications for the problem of
detection just before the lead author meeting in Asheville, Santer said: 'I don't think this
is evidence that we've solved the problem; far from it.' 38 At Asheville he was not so
reticent and he used a special presentation of his findings to push for a positive detection
'bottom line'. This met with strong resistance across the four-day conference and beyond.
As a result, the draft summary finalised after Asheville contained a weak detection claim
glaringly inconsistent with other passages and with Chapter 8's sceptical conclusion. 39
In Madrid, despite further protestations through the mouthpiece of the Saudis, this
inconsistency was resolved in favour of detection. After the meeting, the chapter's