Claim: "However, a single scientist, Dr. Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, rewrote the draft at the IPCC’s request, deleting all five statements, replacing them with a single statement to the effect that a human influence on global climate was now discernible, and making some 200 consequential amendments.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 1
Passage: 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.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 1
Passage: The Chapter 8 draft report put together on 5 October had an Executive Summary of the evidence, and after various qualifications, said "Taken together, these results point towards a human influence on climate."

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 1
Passage: An introductory preface to the SAR written by IPCC chairman Bolin and his co-chairs John T. Houghton and L. Gylvan Meira Filho highlighted "that observations suggest 'a discernible human influence on global climate', one of the key findings of this report, adds an important new dimension to discussion of the climate issue."

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 1
Passage: Prior to the publication of the Second Assessment Report, the industry group Global Climate Coalition distributed a report entitled "The IPCC: Institutionalized Scientific Cleansing" to reporters, US Congressmen, and scientists, which said that Santer 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.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 1
Passage: The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate (considerable progress since the 1990 report in distinguishing between natural and anthropogenic influences on climate, because of: including aerosols; coupled models; pattern-based studies) Climate is expected to continue to change in the future (increasing realism of simulations increases confidence; important uncertainties remain but are taken into account in the range of model projections) There are still many uncertainties (estimates of future emissions and biogeochemical cycling; models; instrument data for model testing, assessment of variability, and detection studies) The Third Assessment Report (TAR) was completed in 2001 and consists of four reports, three of them from its Working Groups: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability Working Group III: Mitigation Synthesis Report A number of the TAR's conclusions are given quantitative estimates of how probable it is that they are correct, e.g., greater than 66% probability of being correct.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: In 1995, GCC assembled an advisory committee of scientific and technical experts to compile an internal-only, 17-page report on climate science entitled "Predicting Future Climate Change: A Primer", which said: “The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied.” In early 1996, GCC's operating committee asked the advisory committee to redact the sections that rebutted contrarian arguments, and accepted the report and distributed it to members.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: In a synthesis report published in Science in 2015, 22 leading marine scientists stated that CO 2 from burning fossil fuels is changing the oceans' chemistry more rapidly than at any time since the Great Dying, Earth's most severe known extinction event, emphasizing that the 2 °C maximum temperature increase agreed upon by governments reflects too small a cut in emissions to prevent "dramatic impacts" on the world's oceans, with lead author Jean-Pierre Gattuso remarking that "The ocean has been minimally considered at previous climate negotiations.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: The paper was criticized by numerous climate scientists.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: Contrarian John Lawrence Daly featured a modified version of the IPCC 1990 schematic, which he mis-identified as appearing in the IPCC 1995 report, and argued that "Overturning its own previous view in the 1995 report, the IPCC presented the 'Hockey Stick' as the new orthodoxy with hardly an apology or explanation for the abrupt U-turn since its 1995 report".

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: Climate scientist Tom Wigley, a lead author of parts of the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has stated that "Michaels' statements on the subject of computer models are a catalog of misrepresentation and misinterpretation … Many of the supposedly factual statements made in Michaels' testimony are either inaccurate or are seriously misleading.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: Wunsch has stated that he finds the statements at both extremes of the global climate change debate distasteful he wrote in a letter dated 15 March 2007 that he believes climate change is "real, a major threat, and almost surely has a major human-induced component.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: The Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR15) was published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on 8 October 2018.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: A 2018 CRS cited the October 2017 CSSR: "Detection and attribution studies, climate models, observations, paleoclimate data, and physical understanding lead to high confidence (extremely likely) that more than half of the observed global mean warming since 1951 was caused by humans, and high confidence that internal climate variability played only a minor role (and possibly even a negative contribution) in the observed warming since 1951.