Debate

Debate

president emeritus of Rockefeller University, past president of the National Academy of Sciences, and former health consultant forpublicly denounced the IPCC report, writing "I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report". He opposed it in the of s 

In turn, Seitz's comments were vigorously opposed by the presidents of the and   who wrote about a "systematic effort by some individuals to undermine and discredit the scientific process that has led many scientists working on understanding climate to conclude that there is a very real possibility that humans are modifying Earth's climate on a global scale. Rather than carrying out a legitimate scientific debate... they are waging in the public media a vocal campaign against scientific results with which they disagree".

1. All revisions were made with the sole purpose of producing the best-possible and most clearly explained assessment of the science, and were under the full scientific control of the Convening Lead Author of Chapter 8.
2. None of the changes were politically motivated.

Santer's position was supported by fellow IPCC authors and senior figures of the American Meteorological Society and University Corporation for Atmospheric ResearchIn 1997, Paul Edwards and IPCC author published a paper rebutting criticisms of the IPCC report