in a way that was relevant to and understandable by policymakers. Many
scientific questions were raised, but also a large proportion of the meeting was
devoted to the detailed presentation of the report’s material. In addition the
meeting had to formally accept the TS and the underlying chapters as documents
that had been through the expert and government review processes, that
presented a comprehensive, objective and balanced view of the science of climate
change and that were consistent with the SPM.
The basic documentation for the 99 government delegations that attended the
Plenary consisted of the SPM, TS and 14 chapters as sent out in October 2000
together with about 100 pages of government and expert review comments on the
SPM and a further draft of the SPM which had been revised by the SPM drafting
team in the light of the review comments immediately prior to the meeting.
To ensure the integrity of the science as the SPM was debated, 45 scientists
representing the Lead Authors of the chapters were present at the Plenary. A
good rapport developed between the delegates and the scientists. Many questions
were raised by delegates regarding the science, in particular about the degree of
certainty about various critical statements and its quantification. Questions were
also raised about the presentation and its clarity, in particular how it might
translate from the agreed English text into other languages. A number of changes
were made to avoid possible misunderstandings. As a result, the SPM was
significantly improved from the original draft, both in its accuracy and clarity. A
substantial number of changes, mostly of an editorial nature, were made in the
underlying chapters to ensure consistency with the finally agreed SPM.
Immediately after the meeting in Shanghai, the SPM was put on to the IPCC web
site (www.ipcc.ch). Within one month, over one million hits on the site were
recorded, demonstrating the large interest throughout the world in the IPCC report.
It is sometimes suggested that because it is an intergovernmental meeting, the
SPM that is finally approved cannot be free of political bias. But there are three
particular features of the process that work strongly to a bias-free result. First, the
99 delegations present at Shanghai represent the complete range of the political
spectrum of view regarding climate change. Secondly, I have already mentioned
the active involvement of 45 scientists representing the underlying chapters.
Thirdly, although there were very lively and, in some cases, long debates, there
was no dissent from either delegations or scientists regarding the final agreed text.
It can be said therefore with confidence that no wording was included or added
and no changes were made for political or ideological reasons.
Allegations have sometimes been made that the Summaries for Policymakers
of IPCC Reports are inconsistent either in content or balance with the underlying
chapters. A 10 page summary of a 1000 page document cannot, of course, reflect
all the detail or nuances present in the longer document. The National Academy
of Sciences of the USA were recently asked to review the WGI TAR; they
confirmed its scientific integrity and the scientific consistency between the SPM
and the underlying chapters.
The three volumes of the IPCC TAR, one for each Working Group, were
published by Cambridge University Press in July 2001. Each is approximately
See editorial and news feature article in Nature, 2001, 412, 103, 112—114.
Report of the US National Academy of Sciences on the IPCC Third Assessment Report, June 2001.
J. Houghton
14
scientific questions were raised, but also a large proportion of the meeting was
devoted to the detailed presentation of the report’s material. In addition the
meeting had to formally accept the TS and the underlying chapters as documents
that had been through the expert and government review processes, that
presented a comprehensive, objective and balanced view of the science of climate
change and that were consistent with the SPM.
The basic documentation for the 99 government delegations that attended the
Plenary consisted of the SPM, TS and 14 chapters as sent out in October 2000
together with about 100 pages of government and expert review comments on the
SPM and a further draft of the SPM which had been revised by the SPM drafting
team in the light of the review comments immediately prior to the meeting.
To ensure the integrity of the science as the SPM was debated, 45 scientists
representing the Lead Authors of the chapters were present at the Plenary. A
good rapport developed between the delegates and the scientists. Many questions
were raised by delegates regarding the science, in particular about the degree of
certainty about various critical statements and its quantification. Questions were
also raised about the presentation and its clarity, in particular how it might
translate from the agreed English text into other languages. A number of changes
were made to avoid possible misunderstandings. As a result, the SPM was
significantly improved from the original draft, both in its accuracy and clarity. A
substantial number of changes, mostly of an editorial nature, were made in the
underlying chapters to ensure consistency with the finally agreed SPM.
Immediately after the meeting in Shanghai, the SPM was put on to the IPCC web
site (www.ipcc.ch). Within one month, over one million hits on the site were
recorded, demonstrating the large interest throughout the world in the IPCC report.
It is sometimes suggested that because it is an intergovernmental meeting, the
SPM that is finally approved cannot be free of political bias. But there are three
particular features of the process that work strongly to a bias-free result. First, the
99 delegations present at Shanghai represent the complete range of the political
spectrum of view regarding climate change. Secondly, I have already mentioned
the active involvement of 45 scientists representing the underlying chapters.
Thirdly, although there were very lively and, in some cases, long debates, there
was no dissent from either delegations or scientists regarding the final agreed text.
It can be said therefore with confidence that no wording was included or added
and no changes were made for political or ideological reasons.
Allegations have sometimes been made that the Summaries for Policymakers
of IPCC Reports are inconsistent either in content or balance with the underlying
chapters. A 10 page summary of a 1000 page document cannot, of course, reflect
all the detail or nuances present in the longer document. The National Academy
of Sciences of the USA were recently asked to review the WGI TAR; they
confirmed its scientific integrity and the scientific consistency between the SPM
and the underlying chapters.
The three volumes of the IPCC TAR, one for each Working Group, were
published by Cambridge University Press in July 2001. Each is approximately
See editorial and news feature article in Nature, 2001, 412, 103, 112—114.
Report of the US National Academy of Sciences on the IPCC Third Assessment Report, June 2001.
J. Houghton
14