The scientists and the apocalypse - Climate Change: The Facts - page 179

concluding summary was removed along with the 'We don't know,' and other sceptical
statements; thus smoothing the way for the bottom line detection claim already agreed
in Madrid: 'the balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on global
climate.'
A discernable human influence
However so weak this detection claim, it had enormous impact as the slogan for the treaty
talks to take the next step. At COP2, when the USA finally gave way with support for
binding emissions protocols, it was presented as the scientific basis for their decision. Had
it not got up in Madrid, 'governments would have faltered on taking urgent action … such
as signing in 1997 the Kyoto Protocol'—so Houghton later reflected in the prestigious
scientific journal, Nature , under the banner: 'meetings that changed the world'. 40 Perhaps.
Perhaps only as a convenient rhetorical authority, but its timely provision made a world of
differencefortheIPCC.Bypolitical andmediaacclaim, detectionlaunchedtheIPCCback
onto centre stage, where its role as the permanent scientific advisor to the treaty process
passed beyond question. The pretender, SBSTA, was soon reduced to the mere conduit of
its advice. But this marvellous renaissance had a dark side.
The Carbon Club were none too happy with the way they had been outmanoeuvred.
RetaliationsbeganassoonastheClubgotholdofthenewversionofChapter8;thescandal
breaking just before COP2. 41 Their case was devastating and difficult to refute, yet passes
unsupported within the scientific establishment. All support was for Houghton to dismiss
the ongoing protests as merely the wailing of the unrepentant global polluters vanquished
bythescientistsinMadrid—itwasasthoughthesaintsoftheapocalypsehadwonamighty
battle to secure our common future. 42 Such heroic resonances might have saved face,
but redemption's great price would be paid and paid again and across the institutions of
science; an exceptionally explicit expression of which is a volte-face caught freeze-framed
in Nature .
During 1995, Nature ran numerous embarrassing news stories on the various scandals
emerging during the Second Assessment, including one lead author's refusal to release to
a reviewer the modelling data behind a key (but dubious) graph. 43 Two scathing editorials
attacked the IPCC, one calling for the first working group to be reined in to 'a more
judicial course' while suspending the others. 44 When the Chapter 8 controversy broke,
the barrage continued with an editorial in support of the complainant and doubtful about
the defence. And yet this time the critique was couched in restraint. Indeed, the main
thrust of the editorial was a call for restraint—its headline imploring 'Climate debate must
not overheat.' Why? Because these charges against the IPCC 'should not be allowed to
undermine efforts to win political support for abatement strategies.' 45