Ah, no, he didn't. He had a beef about the 97% consensus, which beef doesn't hold water.
As far as the drafting process went I am aware he differed in opinion on some of the statements about impact. And he asked to be removed as an author because his view differed from the consensus on that drafting. That's fine, but that's not corruption.
The bits that I saw he disagreed on were in part what I'd described as splitting hairs. Seems he's a bit highly strung about his own opinions. But there's a more significant issue I'll mention last. First, the quibbles:
"
"You have a very silly statement in the draft summary that says that people who live in war-torn countries are more vulnerable to climate change, which is undoubtedly true," said Prof Tol.
"But if you ask people in Syria whether they are more concerned with chemical weapons or climate change, I think they would pick chemical weapons - that is just silliness."
"
He's quibbling about a statement he actually agrees with.
OK, so somewhere in the IPCC report they compare climate science with teh apocolypse? Ah, no, they don't.
Sounds to me like Tol's a bit over the top himself.
But now, the more serious stuff:
The suggestion is that Tol himself corrupted the process - from the same link as above:
"
Prof Tol does not dispute the view that climate change is caused by man – but he says its impact has been exaggerated. However, others say his figures underestimate the economic impact of climate change.
Bob Ward, of the London School of Economics, said: ‘Prof Tol’s contribution to the IPCC report has been under scrutiny because he inserted – at a very late stage, so avoiding the IPCC expert review process – a section which publicised his own work.
The section contained a number of errors. Prof Tol has expressed extreme reluctance to correct the errors in his work and it does not surprise me that he alone among the 410 authors of this report has refused to endorse the summary.’
"
