Editing Global Climate Coalition (section)

=== IPCC Second Assessment Report ===
GCC was an industry participant in the review process of the [[IPCC Second Assessment Report]].<ref name="Franz 1998"/> In 1996, prior to the publication of the Second Assessment Report, GCC distributed a report entitled ''The IPCC: Institutionalized Scientific Cleansing'' to reporters, US Congressmen, and scientists. The coalition report said that [[Benjamin D. Santer]], the lead author of Chapter 8 in the assessment, entitled "Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes," had altered the text, after acceptance by the Working Group, and without approval of the authors, to strike content characterizing the uncertainty of the science. [[Frederick Seitz]] repeated GCC's charges in a letter to ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'' published June 12, 1996.<ref>{{cite book |first1=Naomi |last1=Oreskes |author-link1=Naomi Oreskes |first2=Erik M. |last2=Conway |author-link2=Erik M. Conway |title=Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming |year=2010 |publisher=[[Bloomsbury Publishing]] |isbn=978-1-59691-610-4 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/merchantsofdoubt00ores/page/200 200–2008] |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/merchantsofdoubt00ores/page/200 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Stevens |first=William K. |date=June 17, 1996 |title=U.N. climate report was improperly altered, underplaying uncertainties, critics say |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/17/us/un-climate-report-was-improperly-altered-overplaying-human-rolecritics-say.html |access-date=February 8, 2016 |archive-date=February 17, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160217054605/http://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/17/us/un-climate-report-was-improperly-altered-overplaying-human-rolecritics-say.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Van den Hove|Le Menestrel|De Bettignies|2002}}: ...the GCC personally attacked an IPCC lead author, Dr. Benjamin Santer.</ref> The coalition ran newspaper advertisements that said: "unless the management of the IPCC promptly undertakes to republish the printed versions ... the IPCC's credibility will have been lost."<ref>{{harvnb|Levy|Rothenberg|1999}}</ref>

Santer and his co-authors said the edits were integrations of comments from peer review as per agreed IPCC processes.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ucar.edu/communications/quarterly/summer96/insert.html |title=Special insert--An open letter to Ben Santer |publisher=[[University Corporation for Atmospheric Research]] |access-date=February 9, 2016 |date=Summer 1996 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060626011156/http://www.ucar.edu/communications/quarterly/summer96/insert.html |archive-date=June 26, 2006 |url-status=dead }}</ref>