ClimateScienceWatch

Promoting integrity in the use of climate science in government

Climate Science Watch is a nonprofit public interest education and advocacy project dedicated to holding public officials accountable for the integrity and effectiveness with which they use climate science and related research in government policymaking, toward the goal of enabling society to respond effectively to the challenges posed by global warming and climate change. See Details

Science-Policy Interaction

Successfully confronting the challenge of climate change will require a more functional relationship between scientists and policymakers, with greater accountability and integrity in the translation of research into effective response strategies.

Leaked document says Canadian federal climate scientists being blocked from media contact

Posted on Monday, March 15, 2010

A dramatic reduction in Canadian media coverage of climate change science issues is the result of Harper government rules to control interviews by Environment Canada scientists with journalists, according to an internal Environment Canada federal document. “The document suggests the new communications policy has practically eliminated senior federal scientists from media coverage of climate-change science issues, leaving them frustrated that the government was trying to ‘muzzle’ them,” the Montreal Gazette reported March 15. Calling the situation a scandal, a Climate Action Network Canada spokesman says of the Harper government, “they’re putting climate deniers in key oversight positions over research, and they’re reducing funding in key areas. … It’s almost as though they’re making a conscious attempt to bury the truth.”

Open Letter to the U.S. Government from U.S. Scientists on climate change and the IPCC reports

Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2010

America, pay attention. On March 12, “An Open Letter from Scientists in the United States on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Errors Contained in the Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007,” will be delivered to U.S. federal agencies. The letter thus far has upwards of 150 signers, the vast majority of whom are climate change scientists who work at leading U.S. universities and institutions, including both IPCC and non-IPCC authors. The letter affirms the great and compelling body of evidence developed by the science community over decades, which concludes that the problem of human-caused global climatic disruption is real and that there are multiple reasons for concern about the risks this problem poses. It affirms the great value, fundamental soundness, and significance of the IPCC climate science assessments, while acknowledging the need for careful review of procedures to strengthen and quality-assure future reports, to minimize errors and to correct errors in a timely fashion.

The climate science community has been demonstrating its competence and integrity for many years, greatly advancing understanding and making a sustained effort to communicate with government officials and the public – for what precious little the government and the public have done to understand and act appropriately and effectively in response. Instead of being distracted and manipulated by politically spun-up controversies that seek to impugn the integrity of the science community, let’s find out whether the U.S. government, the news media, and the American people themselves have the competence and wit to pay attention to, learn from, and act effectively on what the climate science community is telling them. See Details for full text of the scientists’ letter.

Robert Watson: IPCC is fundamentally sound; don’t let “skeptics” distract or derail action

Posted on Sunday, March 07, 2010

“Does the IPCC process need to be significantly revised? I would argue that it does not,” says Robert Watson, former IPCC chairman and currently chief science adviser to the UK environment department. “The Principles and Procedures for the selection of authors and review editors, and the peer-review process and approval of reports are all sound. What is needed is to tighten up the implementation of these procedures.” The IPCC “is one of the most rigorous scientific review bodies in existence,” says Watson, and “in many cases is very conservative in its statements.”

In his March 2 guest post on a World Bank site (“Is the scientific evidence of human-induced climate change unequivocal?”), Watson says: “To suggest that the hacked e-mails or the identified inaccuracies in the IPCC Working Group II report undermine the broad evidence that the Earth’s climate is changing due to human activities, or that any talk of carbon emissions cuts should be suspended, is simply untenable. …The challenges of the skeptics must be fully addressed, …[but] We must not allow them to use the incident at [the University of East Anglia] or the mistakes in the IPCC report to distract us or derail the political will to safeguard the planet.”

Al Gore New York Times op-ed a lesson for Obama in how to talk about climate change with candor

Posted on Saturday, February 27, 2010

In the Sunday February 28 New York Times former Vice-President Al Gore weighs in with a strong, 1,900-word op-ed column that includes a spirited defense of climate science and the besieged climate science community (something it would be nice to see Obama start doing). Gore also takes aim at the political paralysis that has been allowed to develop in Washington, notwithstanding the large Democratic majority. He argues for not abandoning cap-and-trade legislation—even as it now appears that it may be on the verge of being jettisoned by Senate climate bill negotiators. Will Senate leaders try to sell us a watered-down compromise that is inadequate to the problem supposedly being addressed? And he delivers a richly-deserved thrashing of the hubristic triumphalism of free-market fundamentalists, who have served the interests of corporate power and wealth, promoted fake-populist demagogues, and undermined the country’s ability to govern itself intelligently. “From the standpoint of governance,” Gore says, what is at stake is our ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption. After all has been said and so little done, the truth about the climate crisis — inconvenient as ever — must still be faced.”

How does the politicization of climate change affect public opinion?

Posted on Monday, February 08, 2010

Recent polling that suggests a decline in U.S. public concern about global warming has raised fears about the viability of building and maintaining support for climate legislation and policy unless there is more widespread understanding of the threat. Climate science has also taken a hit in the news recently with the “Climategate” controversy and questions about the efficacy of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) review process. Yet the fierce politicization of the climate change problem raises questions as to whether public opinion has been shaped more by partisan conflict than by an understanding, or a lack thereof, of the scientific findings per se.

Climate Progress interviews Christopher Field and Michael MacCracken on climate change reality

Posted on Monday, February 08, 2010

Chris Field, co-chair of the next IPCC assessment of climate change impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability, and Mike MacCracken of the Climate Institute were interviewed February 3 on human-driven climate change and its potential impacts and responded to global warming “skeptics”. In talking about how we know humans are changing the climate and why climate change is a clear and present danger, Field and MacCracken bring sanity and clarity to a discussion that has been confused by denialist attacks on the IPCC and the climate science community. See Details for links to videos.

Obama State of the Union evasive and inadequate on climate change and climate science

Posted on Thursday, January 28, 2010

In his State of the Union address President Obama failed once again to give the American people some straight talk about global climate disruption. If Obama had been willing to devote even one minute to talking about climate change and its profound implications, he could have done much to lay the groundwork for a better public understanding of the problem and for meaningful policymaking – but he didn’t. He repeated his usual “clean energy clean energy clean energy” mantra (with “clean nuclear” and “clean coal” and offshore drilling also in the mix), but failed to explain to the American people why he supports comprehensive climate change legislation and why they should, too. And on climate science, if he had been willing to devote even a few sentences to holding his ground he could have done much to support a science community that is besieged by an aggressive political disinformation campaign, and could have struck a blow for scientific integrity in policymaking – but he didn’t. In the face of a nihilistic reaction from some in his Congressional audience, he quit and ran for the hills after a single sentence.

Worldwide glacier melt a real concern; Himalaya controversy leaves questions about IPCC leadership

Posted on Thursday, January 21, 2010

The IPCC on January 20 officially acknowledged “poorly substantiated rates of recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers.” The controversy over the erroneous paragraph in the IPCC Working Group II Fourth Assessment Report should not overshadow the large body of evidence about anthropogenic climate change and its likely disruptive consequences, nor the overall IPCC synthesis conclusion that “Widespread mass losses from glaciers and reductions in snow cover over recent decades are projected to accelerate throughout the 21st century, reducing water availability … in regions supplied by meltwater from major mountain ranges (e.g. Hindu-Kush, Himalaya, Andes), where more than one-sixth of the world population currently lives.” But, as we said to ClimateWire, the IPCC should re-examine how it vets information when compiling future assessment reports. And, while the official IPCC mea culpa statement on January 20 is a necessary step in the right direction, it is not dispositive of questions this incident raises about the IPCC leadership and the organization’s public communications capabilities.

IPCC slips on the ice with statement about Himalayan glaciers

Posted on Tuesday, January 19, 2010

In a chapter on climate change impacts in Asia, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report (2007) relied on an error-riddled online article when it discussed the likely state of Himalayan glaciers in 2035. It did so despite questions raised by some reviewers. Details about the incident have come to light since early November when the Indian government published a report that contradicted the IPCC. The error and the IPCC’s initial response highlight the need to strengthen the IPCC review process, and its capacity to respond quickly and appropriately to such problems. Failure to do so may undermine public confidence in the IPCC and invite opportunistic attacks by those opposing meaningful action on climate change.

Condemnation of mountaintop removal coal mining: A good example of citizen-scientist action

Posted on Friday, January 15, 2010

An article in Science in which the authors conclude a review of the irredeemably damaging impacts of mountaintop removal mining with a call for policymakers to stop permitting this practice is a good example of prominent scientists using their expertise to play a much-needed role as citizens. There are many potential avenues for influential science citizenship, but the community needs to be creative and skillful about it.

Capitol Hill briefing draws needed attention to challenges of climate change impacts and adaptation

Posted on Tuesday, January 12, 2010

A January 8 Capitol Hill briefing by four leading analysts on Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation reflected a growing awareness that scientific research and assessment per se don’t necessarily lead to effective action to enhance resilience to the impacts of global climatic disruption. The briefing began with the scientific foundation for understanding climate change impacts and moved to an insightful discussion of the challenges of putting adaptive preparedness into practice.

Ross Gelbspan: “In Conclusion…”

Posted on Saturday, January 02, 2010

“The truth is that, even assuming the wildest possible success of these initiatives—that humanity decided tomorrow to replace its coal and oil burning energy sources with non-carbon sources—it would still be too late to avert major climate disruptions,” says journalist-author Ross Gelbspan. “Despite this reality, the activists are still focusing on the causes—and not on the consequences—of the crisis. All these initiatives address only one part of the coming reality.” We share Gelbspan’s view, outlined in a recently posted video, that an essential part of the solution is “a coordinated global public-works program to rewire the world with clean energy.” We would add—in light of the potential future Gelbspan describes and scientific assessments project—that a coordinated strategy of adaptive preparedness that seeks to limit, if possible, the damage from global climatic disruption must be a major component of a comprehensive climate policy. See Details for the video and links to sources.

Stephen Schneider: Climate Denier Gate a case of Science as a Contact Sport

Posted on Wednesday, December 30, 2009

In Climate Denier Gate (Stephen Schneider’s term for what the deniers call “Climategate”), “the private frustrations of a few climate scientists was turned into an ostensible plot by the entire climate science community in dozens of countries, hundreds of institutions, and hammered out over 40 years of peer reviewed assessment studies—as some kind of fraud.” Schneider says, “The big untold story here is how broken the 2009 media is for investigating the wrong folks and giving credibility to a non-event that changes nothing in climate science.” One more episode in the decades-long tension between climate science and public debate, the subject of Schneider’s memoir, Science as a Contact Sport.

Text of the Copenhagen Accord

Posted on Saturday, December 19, 2009

The United Nations climate conference of 193 nations in Copenhagen ended early this morning with particpants agreeing to “take note” of the Copenhagen Accord, an agreement brokered by the United States, China, India, Brazil, and South Africa. With the Copenhagen Accord, an initial group of more than 25 nations has agreed to adopt and report on national mitigation actions to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Developed nations have agreed to mobilize resources to support mitigation, adaptation, technology development and transfer, and capacity-building in developing countries. The document is a 3-page, 12-paragraph political statement and conceptual framework, with Appendices to include listings of mitigation targets and actions of Annex I and Non-Annex I parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. All national actions under the agreement are voluntary. No date is specified for when, or whether, a more detailed and binding protocol will be negotiated. See Details for full text.

“Climate Scoreboard” - new widget simulates warming consequences of Copenhagen proposals

Posted on Friday, December 11, 2009

A new “widget” uses a sophisticated simulation called C-ROADS to calculate how much the Earth’s average temperature is expected to rise given the current suite of proposals under consideration in Copenhagen. The Climate Scoreboard is automatically updated each day as the overall terms—country by country commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions—for a potential global climate treaty evolve at COP15. Click on details to view the Climate Scoreboard and to learn more.

Page 1 of 13 pages 1 2 3 > Last »