PDF(Sci-hub)
Abstract：
The 1983 National Academy of Sciences report entitled \"Changing Climate,\" authored by a committee of physical and social scientists chaired by William Nierenberg, was an early comprehensive review of the effects of human-caused increases in the levels of atmospheric CO2. Study of the events surrounding the committee\'s creation, deliberations, and subsequent report demonstrates that the conclusions of the report were the consensus of the entire committee and in line with the scientific consensus of the time. This result contraverts a 2008 paper in which Naomi Oreskes, Erik M. Conway, and Matthew Shindell asserted that the report contradicted a growing consensus about climate change, and that Nierenberg for political reasons deliberately altered the summary and conclusions of the report in a way that played down the concerns of the other physical scientists on the committee. Examining the production of the report and contextualizing it in contemporaneous scientific and political discussion, we instead show how it was a multi-year effort with work divided among the various members of the committee according to their expertise. The synthesis and conclusions were expressly a joint statement of the committee and were consistent with other assessments of that time expressing deep concern over the potential issues while stopping short of recommending major policy changes due to the uncertainties, and to a lack of good alternatives.
摘要：
1983年美国国家科学院报告题为“气候变化，由威廉·尼伦伯格主持的物理和社会科学家委员会撰写，是对人为造成的大气CO2水平增加的影响的早期全面审查。研究围绕委员会创建的事件，审议，随后的报告表明，报告的结论是整个委员会的共识，符合当时的科学共识。这一结果与NaomiOreskes在2008年的一篇论文相反，埃里克·M·康威,马修·辛德尔断言，这份报告与关于气候变化的日益增长的共识相矛盾，Nierenberg出于政治原因故意改变了报告的摘要和结论，从而淡化了委员会其他物理科学家的担忧。审查报告的编写情况，并在同期的科学和政治讨论中对报告进行背景分析，相反，我们展示了这是一项多年的努力，工作根据委员会各成员的专长进行分配。综合和结论明确是委员会的联合声明，与当时的其他评估一致，表达了对潜在问题的深切关注，同时由于不确定性而没有建议重大政策变化，缺乏好的选择。
