Climbing out of the climate bunker?
The recent storm of headlines aside, climate science has not changed radically in the last three months. The peer-reviewed journals are still the same, and the basic broad claims they support are the same. But what has changed in a techtonic manner is perception that the public and policy-makers have of climate science. In that ...
The recent storm of headlines aside, climate science has not changed radically in the last three months. The peer-reviewed journals are still the same, and the basic broad claims they support are the same. But what has changed in a techtonic manner is perception that the public and policy-makers have of climate science. In that sense, the field has taken a severe hit.
The recent storm of headlines aside, climate science has not changed radically in the last three months. The peer-reviewed journals are still the same, and the basic broad claims they support are the same. But what has changed in a techtonic manner is perception that the public and policy-makers have of climate science. In that sense, the field has taken a severe hit.
And so, it’s welcome news that climate scientists are beginning to take stock of what’s happened, climb out of the bunker, and institute policies to repair public trust in the institutions charged with presenting climate findings to the public. As the New York Times’ John Broder reports:
The volume of criticism and the depth of doubt have only grown, and many scientists now realize they are facing a crisis of public confidence and have to fight back. Tentatively and grudgingly, they are beginning to engage their critics, admit mistakes, open up their data and reshape the way they conduct their work …
A number of institutions are beginning efforts to improve the quality of their science and to make their work more transparent. The official British climate agency is undertaking a complete review of its temperature data and will make its records and analysis fully public for the first time, allowing outside scrutiny of methods and conclusions. The United Nations panel on climate change will accept external oversight of its research practices, also for the first time.
That last note is especially important. In the context of interviewing climate scientists and climate skeptics in recent weeks, including several who have served as authors and peer-reviewers for the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, I’ve heard a lot of internal grumbling about the organizational adeptness of the IPCC — even from those who fully support its mission.
Cheers to reform. The IPCC is dead. Long live the IPCC.
More from Foreign Policy
What Putin Got Right
The Russian president got many things wrong about invading Ukraine—but not everything.
Russia Has Already Lost in the Long Run
Even if Moscow holds onto territory, the war has wrecked its future.
China’s Belt and Road to Nowhere
Xi Jinping’s signature foreign policy is a “shadow of its former self.”
The U.S. Overreacted to the Chinese Spy Balloon. That Scares Me.
So unused to being challenged, the United States has become so filled with anxiety over China that sober responses are becoming nearly impossible.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
