For the past two weeks, conservative commentators including Matt Drudge and Glenn Beck have feasted on the scandal known as "ClimateGate," arguing that leaked emails and documents from a British university reveal global warming as a hoax. Let's turn down the heat and take a closer look. It's true the emails have revealed unprofessional conduct among certain scientists and have called into question particular datasets of the University of Anglica's Climate Research Unit. But have they discredited the entire field, or turned our understanding of climate change upside-down? Not at all, says prominent climate scientist Michael MacCracken. No more than a scandal in JAMA would undermine the credibility of modern medicine as a whole.
COMMENTS (3)
More...
MacCracken, the chief scientist for climate change programs at the Climate Institute in Washington, D.C., has been working in the field for more than 25 years. He was senior global change scientist to the interagency Office of the U.S. Global Change Research Program in Washington D.C., from 1993 to 2002. He also coordinated the official U.S. government reviews of several of the assessment reports prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). On the eve of the U.N. climate summit in Copenhagen, which begins next week, MacCracken explains why everything we thought we knew about climate change, we still do know.
Foreign Policy: Have you been following the ClimateGate email saga closely?
MM: No. I think it's largely a distraction from the bigger picture on climate change, and especially ill-timed right before Copenhagen.
FP: The main charges revolve around the professional conduct of some scientists and allegations that certain data sets in the possession of the University of East Anglia are flawed. For instance, their data on surface temperature readings are in question. Do these charges, if true, alter our basic understanding of climate change?
MM: No. The skeptics seem to have this view that it [climate-change science] is a house of cards -- you pull one thing out, and the whole thing collapses. But the truth is that it's more like a pyramid, and the basic building blocks remain solid. Whatever the revelations reveal about [the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit], our trust in the science produced by many other credible sources remains intact. The climate is clearly changing; I don't think there is any doubt.
FP: A few days before the U.N. climate summit begins in Copenhagen, please remind us what those basic facts are. What's the big picture?
MM: The first point is that human activities are changing atmospheric composition. This is supported by observations gathered by scientists from all over the world -- there's no way this ["ClimateGate"] discussion is changing that in any way.
The second is that if you change atmospheric composition by increasing greenhouse gas concentrations, that will exert a warming influence on the planet. There are some questions about exactly how much warming you'll have, but most forecasts predict a few degrees of warming in response to the equivalent of a doubling of the CO2 concentration. That isn't changed.
The third is that the climate has actually been changing in recent history. There are a host of reliable indicators, not just temperature change, by which we know this is occurring -- from the fact of Arctic sea ice retreating and sea-level rise, to the habitat ranges of plant and animal species shifting over time. Moreover, temperature is actually one of the harder things to try to keep track of because it varies so much from place to place, and varies even from the sun to the shade; you have to be very careful with the observations and do a fair amount of adjustments.
The fourth is that if we keep emitting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, we're going to have significantly more change. Right now there is no indication that we're going to just suddenly stop putting CO2 into the atmosphere.
The fifth is that climate change has visible and important impacts -- changes you can already see if you visit the Arctic, or many other places. This isn't in dispute.
The sixth is that if you want to stop this, you have to make large cuts in emissions.
All these basic points are unchanged by these arguments that they're having in the ClimateGate discussions. It really doesn't affect the large scientific interpretation of what's going on.
SUBJECTS:
(3)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE