The less people know about how laws and sausages are made, the better they sleep at night. That comment could equally apply to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC's reports, are immense undertakings. Each depends on the unpaid work of hundreds of scientists and runs to thousands of pages. But most of the controversy is generated at the last minute, when the authors meet government officials to produce a summary of 30 or so pages.
越少人知道法律和香肠是怎么制造的，他们晚上就睡得越好。那一评论也可以同样适用于政府间气候变化专门委员会。IPCC的报告责任重大。每一份都依赖于数百个科学家不计报酬的工作，长度可达几千页纸。但是大部分的争议是在最后关头产生的，也就是当作者会面政府官员来产生一份30页左右的总结。
It works as follows. The authors write a draft summary. Each sentence of the draft is projected onto a big screen in a giant hall. Officials then propose changes to the text, authors decide whether the changes are justified. Eventually a consensus is supposed to be reached, the sentence is approved or rejected, the chairman bangs a gavel and moves on to the next sentence.
其运作方式如下：作者们起草一份总结。草稿中的每一句话都投影到一个大厅的大屏幕上。接着官员们提议文字改动，作者们决定改动是否合理。最终据说达成协议，句子要么被通过要么被拒绝，主席敲打一把小锤子，接着转移到下一个句子。
Since the report's publication, more unseemly wrangles have come to light. Robert Stavins, a professor at Harvard University and a lead author on the chapter in the main report dealing with international cooperation, wrote to the report's chairman to express disappointment and frustration. 3/4 of his original draft was rejected and what remains is a list of disconnected facts, not a guide to the state of knowledge. Another professor, John Broome of Oxford University writes, we counter-threatened. Eventually some brief paragraphs survived, badly mauled and their content much diminished but not entirely empty. He describes himself as angry at the deletions and astonished by the process.
自从该报告发表后，更多不相宜的争辩已经暴露出来。Robert Stavins是哈佛大学的一名教授，他也是处理国际合作的主要报道那一章的主要作者，写信给报告的主席表达其失望和沮丧。他的原始草稿有3/4遭到拒绝，剩下的则是一份不连贯的事实列表，而不是认识状态的指南。另一位教授，来自牛津大学的John Broome则写道，我们反威胁来。最终一些简短的段落幸存，遭到严重损害（大幅度改动），它们的内容大部分减弱但是没有完全空洞。他描述自己为删减愤怒，也为这过程震惊。
Dr Stavins concedes that official approval gives the IPCC political credibility. Still, having a report reviewed by officials who are themselves interested parties created an irreconcilable conflict of interest. The details, arguments and numbers remain in the full report. But the summary aimed at policymakers is not necessarily a good guide to them.
Stavins承认官员的通过给予来IPCC政治可信度。然而，让报告经由本身就是利害关系方的官员审查产生了不可调和的利益冲突。细节、论点和数据依旧保存在完整的报告中，但是针对政策制定者的总结对他们来说并不完全是一份好的指南。
