About the SA Blog Network



Opinion, arguments & analyses from the editors of Scientific American
Observations HomeAboutContact

U.K. Government: “Climategate” No Reason to Doubt Climate Change

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Email   PrintPrint

Smokestacks at a power plantYet another scientific body has jumped in to the so-called climategate fray to dispute that the leaked documents offer any reason to doubt that human activity is warming the planet.

Back in 2009, as you may recall, a number of e-mails and documents related to climate research were leaked following a server breach at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in England. Climate skeptics, poring through the correspondence, latched on to a number of emails that they claimed undermined the scientific case for human-caused climate change, including the widely publicized assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The climate scientists, skeptics alleged, manipulated data and used underhanded methods to block the publication of conflicting research.

But those skeptical claims have been roundly debunked. First, UEA asked two independent review panels to assess the evidence. Both reviews were completed in 2010 and found no evidence for scientific malpractice. The panels’ reports did make important recommendations about making climate science more transparent, but as the one of those reports concluded, "we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments." The Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee in turn issued two reports on the UEA reviews, broadly accepting the panels’ recommendations for greater openness and transparency.

Now the U.K. government, represented by the Government Office for Science, has produced its own response. In a May 5 memo to Parliament, the government wrote: "After two independent reviews, and two reviews by the Science and Technology Committee, we find no evidence to question the scientific basis of human influence on the climate."

A broad range of evidentiary sources in a landmark 2007 IPCC report and "an almost continuous body of publications in the academic literature" all point in the same direction, the governmental memo stated, showing that "the evidence for human induced climate change continues to grow and that the perceptions of future climate risk are not diminishing."

Ultimately, it is doubtful that the governmental proclamation will have any significant influence on the debate. Those who believe the planet is warming are already supported by scientific consensus and by a wealth of climate data, and those who believe a conspiracy is afoot to suppress conflicting data will hardly be swayed by a formal statement to the contrary from a government body.

Photo credit: © iStockphoto/acilo

Rights & Permissions

Comments 26 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. mikeorgan1955 10:46 pm 05/6/2011

    Here we go again. Why does nobody want to listen to the majority of the climate change sceptics? We do not doubt the climate is changing but we do doubt two very important points.

    1. Is the change really man made or are other factors involved.
    2. Can we with our current level of understanding with regard to the climate determine, with any accuracy, what will be the long term effects.

    I speak to many people who are very informed on the climate change question and all but the hysterical agree that the evidence so far is not clear on either of these two points. If we use our current knowledge to make dramatic changes it will not only cost us massive amounts to implement but we may be responsible for a humanitarian disaster unparalleled in human history.

    Imagine the effect if we decide to protect ourselves from a warming of the environment if the planet not only does not warm as expected but in fact cools from a reaction that our science cannot as yet predict. Even worse what if the warming stops the Atlantic conveyer (very probable) which we know from ice core sampling has in the past led to the most severe ice ages the world has endured.

    I for one think that we should be cautious in our approach and be realistic in our ability to understand how the climate works. Remember it is not too long ago and I am talking of only 30 years ago that it was impossible to predict the local weather 24 hours in advance. Even today the climatologists can only accurately predict 3 days in advance so why are we so quick to think scientists can predict the climate in the next 50, 100 or 200 years.

    Be real people and start acting like thinking intelligent beings and stop believing blindly in every hysterical person with an agenda that shouts the loudest. Let’s get back to the ideals of Newton and Galileo and use the scientific method to work the situation out.

    We should start to engage all the voices out there who have informed educated opinions and not just the ones who think that climate change is all our fault. Remember science tells us one thing over and over again, the natural world is a place of change and that change is vital for the very existence of our world and the cosmos. No change and things die that is the way of it.

    Link to this
  2. 2. sault 11:55 pm 05/6/2011

    Mike, this short distillation of current climate science answers most of your questions:

    Coal power plants are a major contributor to climate change, but even aside from the potential costs of climate change, electricity from coal should be 3x more expensive due to its mercury, soot and particulate emissions:

    Even if you think the level of climate disruption will be on the lower end of the climatologists’ predictions (it’s NOT, by the way), the cautious approach would be to limit how much we throw the Earth’s atmosphere out of balance with our uncontrolled experiment in releasing billions of tons of carbon.

    Galileo was persecuted by those whose world views were greatly disturbed by what he plainly saw with his own eyes. Maybe this is happening again. Human-caused Climate Change is perhaps the greatest failure of Market Forces ever, and those who hold blind faith that the "Invisible Hand" will make everything all right, cannot bear to hear that their perfect market is helpless in front of Mother Nature.

    Link to this
  3. 3. Bops 2:33 am 05/7/2011

    There’s no harm in cleaning up the planet. It doesn’t have to cost large amounts of money as you suggest,it’s about making smarter choices.

    We can all do something to reduce our waste. No matter how you feel about climate change, you can still help in some way.

    I’m sure if you think about it, even you can think of a way to help, that won’t put you out too much and help the clean-up.

    Link to this
  4. 4. Bonzo666 6:04 am 05/7/2011

    Keep Beating that Dead Horse it will get up and run any day now.
    Their evidence was shaky at best more accurately. The old if you can’t dazzle them with Brilliance Baffle them with BS.
    The UN and all the broke progressive socialist nations are Frothing at the mouth at the thought of unrestricted taxation.
    The scam is running out the Solar cycle has been reversing for several years now. The global temp is dropping.
    No Virginia global scamming doesn’t make it colder or stormier.

    In 5 years or so we are going to start seeing a noticeable global cooling .Those who actually think for themselves already do. No taxes or restriction no taking credit for saving Humanity and the world.
    It’s getting harder to bury the contradictory evidence.
    $0 years ago they tried to pull the same scam then it was co2 causing the next ice age. There was no INTERNET to force feed the general population propaganda.

    Link to this
  5. 5. Desert Navy 7:03 am 05/7/2011

    I wish the scientific community (and science writers) would stop spending so much energy trying to affix blame for climate change on human-activity and spend more effort explaining why climate change is such a threat to the survival of the human species.

    It just doesn’t matter if CO2 levels are human-induced or mid-Atlantic deep-sea vent induced, it is going to require human intervention to mitigate its impact. Convince people to save the world instead of telling them they’re destroying it and you’ll bring them on-board.

    Link to this
  6. 6. mikeorgan1955 7:15 am 05/7/2011

    Thanks for your advise SAULT but unfortunately you have inadvertently made my point stronger. John Cook the author of the link article you suggest for me to read is not part of the solution to recruiting informed intelligent people to debate purposely climate change but he is an example of the problem. Mr Cook is not a climate scientist but an Astrophysicist.

    Too often people are impressed that the speaker has a degree or doctorate in a science discipline and therefore has the credentials to speak on any other scientific discipline, which is just wrong. After all if I want to get my taxes sorted out, would I go to a divorce lawyer, no because he would probably have only a bit more knowledge than I do. I would of cause go to a tax lawyer who has spent his/her career keeping abreast of their specialist subject.

    I want to see informed, intelligent debate carried out by the very people with the knowledge and speciality to settle (or attempt to settle) the key questions. I fear however that most of those that qualify are being frightened off the debate by the incessant cry of DENIER that is thrown so often at people who dare to question the popular opinion. I am drawn to two things here the first is the lesson people should learn if they read “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds” written by Charles Mackay and the other is the Greek term ochlocracy or Tyranny of the majority.

    I always keep the following in mind when I read a scientific article, who wrote it and what are his/her qualifications, also do they have an agenda.

    Whilst I would admit that everybody has a right to make reasonable comment I do not make up my mind based on uniformed opinion but simply use any information garnered to do my homework and gather as much information as I need.

    Link to this
  7. 7. PabstyLoudmouth 7:48 am 05/7/2011

    FTA -But those skeptical claims have been roundly debunked- Really so the Himalayan Glaciers are going to be gone by 2050? How many hundreds of millions did the former IPCC chairman send to his hometown for research into this very topic?
    Hey you idiot editors at SA, why don’t you do a story on this, or will it cut your funding as well? This is the most radical left wing website I have ever seen, no tolerance for other opinions, ideas or intelligent debate. And really you want 80% of Americans electricity to triple? You do understand that would send us into a depression worse than the 30′s? No wonder why you advertise for the Prius on you site.

    Link to this
  8. 8. Lazarus 8:56 am 05/7/2011


    You may not doubt that the climate is changing but it doesn’t take much googling to see the great lengths that many sceptics, including popular ones like Watts, go too to deny the basic temperature record.

    Your point one is mute since the best science we have tell you that man is a significant contributor to the increased temperatures that are driving our changing climate – there is no other factors identified as approaching this significance.

    You second point is interesting because there are areas of uncertainty, (man’s affects not being one), but any uncertainty as to the long term effects should in a rational world drive increased efforts to be prepared as it does in the insurance industry. Uncertainty should make any real sceptic a believer in increased research, adaptation and mitigation until those uncertainties are better understood.

    Link to this
  9. 9. mikeorgan1955 9:33 am 05/7/2011

    Lazarus your points are well taken but I my point is that the science is not yet sophisticated enough to identify all the possible factors and without complete or at least a comprehensive knowledge of cause and effect. Any movement to mitigate the effects could cause a backlash that we are completely unable to control. Being prepared is not the current trend there are elements out there that want to actively use our primitive science to change the climate, which whilst I admit, is highly unlikely could be problematic. Not only that, but you are fooling yourself if you believe even the solutions being implemented are not going to have very grave effects on millions if not billions of humans.

    The strange thing for me is that the thing which would go a long way to solving the present crisis (if that’s what you want to call it I wouldn’t) is population control. A decrease in population would be difficult to handle for many reasons but ultimately it would lead to a more sustainable future for all. Thing is, it’s the elephant in the room that no one wants to debate.

    I believe if we put as much effort into this as we do into climate change we could solve it, as we do know the science and the solution. But messing around with forces we do not understand is much more fun isn’t it and then we can watch the population problem sort itself out with massive famine, war and pestilence caused not by the climate but by our lack of interest in solving problems we do have control over.

    Link to this
  10. 10. vmfenimore 9:53 am 05/7/2011

    I think it is a pathetic use of intellect when we have to prove that pollution is causing climate change to get people to legislate a cleaner world. Buy an aquarium, get it in balance and then throw some pollutants in it. See what happens to your fish. No one will ever prove to me through any scientific study that dumping pollutants into the air, earth and water is not harmful. Scientific studies can be manipulated, erroneous, and just flat out wrong. You can deny your common sense but I will not deny mine.
    The problem is always financial and political. "But our corporate profits will fall", "your prices will rise", "people won’t be fed".

    It’s really too bad and pathetic that we as a human race can’t figure out how to take care of our people and the earth at the same time.

    So instead of doing that, we (well not me) argue instead that "the earth will heal itself" and only when we’ve polluted our earth close to the point of our own extinction and beyond the point of return will we believe otherwise.

    Do I believe the earth is getting hotter ? Probably but not necessarily. Do I believe we’re headed toward the next ice age ? Maybe ? Who knows. It does not matter.

    I like to play a little mind game with myself. I am forced to answer a yes/no question with my soul at stake. The question is "Are our current levels of pollution on earth a threat to the long term survival of the human species?" The devil is asking but the judge of my answer is an independent "all knowing" third party (not a human scientist or politician). I have to answer yes or no. If I’m wrong I spend eternity in hell.

    What would I answer ? How long do I have to think about my answer ?

    The point of this exercise is to help myself determine what I intuit about a issue.

    This one is a question I would not even have to think about or hesitate on.

    What about you ? Do you really think that we can maintain current levels of pollution without eventually harming the earth to the point of our extinction ? What about increasing levels of pollution due to the increasing population ?

    I’m not certain that we will hit a "runaway" greenhouse effect but at best we will eventually hit a mass human die off and huge population reduction. At that point as humans we will probably lose much of our technology and our progeny won’t pollute as much because they won’t have the technological means. And that will help the earth heal. Too bad we can’t find a better way.

    Oh well, que sera sera.

    Link to this
  11. 11. PabstyLoudmouth 10:10 am 05/7/2011

    That is a good approach to take my friend. The only major issue I have is dumping billions and billions of dollars into something that is basically fear mongering. I am all for a cleaner planet, but call it that, don’t create a giant fabricated industry on it that claims one agenda only to serve greed. And they are preying on people like you that want the world to be cleaner. I don’t think anyone is in favor of polluting more but you have to admit America has cut way down over the past 25 years, we are moving in the correct direction. And Just one more thing, funny how a singular flood can be a result of global warming but if you talk about North America’s harsh winter your argument is thrown out by the "warmers".

    Link to this
  12. 12. mikeorgan1955 11:34 am 05/7/2011

    Vmfenimore you know your points sound ever so logical unless that is like me you are of that age where you’ve heard them before and they just don’t make much sense when stacked against the other issues. Pollution is not the disease its the symptom of a much deeper problem, that of my afore mentioned issue, population.

    In property value they say Location Location Location with regard to climate change and pollution and many other problems I say Population Population Population sort that out and everything else looks after itself.

    Here’s another one to think of. If we continue to increase our power consumption at even levels 10 years ago we will be physically incapable of building the necessary power plants (even if we get nuclear fusion up and running) that we will require in 50 years. Its a simple case of basic arithmetic. So thats where our billions of Pounds Euros and Dollars should be spent not on some fantasy crisis that might or might not happen. According to the Fusion Society the US has spent 23 billion on Nuclear fusion in 57 years that is just pathetic. Compare that to the amount spent just talking about Climate change. The Europeans have spent even less but have got much further due to a joined up approach on the issue. Building the first sustainable reactor in Europe is due to start in 2012 the US has no plans to build even a test reactor.

    So that where I stand, cut down the population and spend more on research into clean and sustainable energy and stop listening to fear mongerers who really believe they have all the answers, when they don’t even know what the right question is.

    By the way the amount that the US has spent on Nuclear Fusion research in 57 years amounts to the same as the American public has spent on life coaches in the past 10 years, think about it all that money spent just to be told you are doing everything wrong by people who don’t have anything better to do with their lives and I don’t mean politicians although they do much the same thing.

    Link to this
  13. 13. Lazarus 11:38 am 05/7/2011

    Mike your reasoning that the science is not sophisticated enough is just an argument from incredulity. Every credible national scientific academy in the world have made statements supporting the findings and conclusions of the general scientific research into climate change.

    They believe it is sophisticated enough with a high degree of certainty. They are the most qualified to make this judgement.

    You are also slipping from being a sceptic, which I consider to be myself, into solutions which are purely politics and policy. I accept the science, it is the only rational position to take. Once the problem is accepted, which you appear not to have done, then efforts to how the predicted problems can be approached can be considered solely on their merits.

    Presently you appear to deny the problem and use that position to dismiss any possible actions.

    Link to this
  14. 14. mikeorgan1955 1:43 pm 05/7/2011

    Lazarus the argument that the science is not sophisticated enough is highly credible. For example the oceans cover 70% of the surface of our planet and I think on this I can make an informed statement and that is our knowledge of this environment is elementary at best. I have been a diver for over 45 years and a student of Marine science for the same time. We do not truly understand how the oceans affect the climate and ask any scientist and you will get the same response they just do not have enough data. The project to launch satellites to study the temperature differences at the surface has run into problems but once they are sorted, they should at least give us an idea of this important factor but the underlying reasons for these differences will still be a mystery.

    We need to do massive amounts of research to truly understand this ecosystem and even then there are so many other factors which we need to understand. The people in the know will tell you frankly that we know more about our local space than we do about the oceans.

    Can I ask you, if you employed someone to fix your TV and he told you honestly that he doesn’t know what 70% of th components do would you pay him? Of cause you wouldn’t. So why do we continue to give money to climate scientists who are only interested in giving us predictions based on supposition and inaccurate models based on incomplete (and in some cases totally made up) data. Let’s use that money to pay for research to increase our knowledge of this planet and provide the data to answer these important question. We may even get some side benefits as we did from space research.

    So as I said before our science is not sophisticated enough to predict the climate more than 3 days in advance so before we start scaring people lets get up to a level when we can predict it for at least a glorious English summer (2 to 3 weeks).

    Link to this
  15. 15. 45acper 2:07 pm 05/7/2011

    The very nature of science is skepticism. It seems that anthropogenic climate change is the 21st Century’s version of what ‘true believers’ must adhere to to be considered ‘real scientists’. Somehow I’m reminded of what happened in Germany prior to WWII: the leading physicists of the time condemned what they called bad ‘judenphysik’ as opposed to good ‘deutchephysik’. Now it’s good ‘anthropogenic climate change’ as opposed to bad ‘climate change skeptics (deniers)’. The true believers dismiss the effect of the sun on our climate. They dismiss the mere possibility of any change being cyclical.

    It seems more like the Renaissance with the Catholic church demonizing ‘non-believers’ who utilized what has come to be known as the Scientific Method. And Scientific American has become a political tool of the true believers.

    Link to this
  16. 16. the Gaul 3:57 pm 05/7/2011

    Wolves in sheep’s clothing, otherwise known as deniers pretending to be reasonable. ‘Wait for the "scientific" method.’ Compare evidence to "judenphysik."
    Here’s what’s going to happen soon: Water and food wars [already happening in Africa], increasing food prices [with no help from the Fed], decreasing arable land, decreasing water table [both long since in evidence].
    Here’s what’s going to happen longer term: Brief economic spurt in Asia [far exceeding what's now happening], followed by a severe reduction in global population.
    The science is in. We are already at, or beyond, the tipping point. We can now do nothing to reverse the climatological effects that we have set in motion. We can only lessen their severity. As long as wolves deny that opportunity, then the long-term effect becomes more severe. Each day that passes without our active intervention sees that eventual severity grow.

    Link to this
  17. 17. amirkhan 4:11 pm 05/7/2011

    For those who still need evidence of climate change can check:

    Please note these effects cannot be quantified with a tabletop experiments it takes a lot of research, experiments, field-campaigns, data analysis and years to come to conclusion. Nonetheless one cannot deny the implications.

    Link to this
  18. 18. mikeorgan1955 4:56 pm 05/7/2011

    The link you posted makes my point that the poor understanding of the environment has led otherwise great projects to destabilise local ecosystems.

    I visited the Aral Sea in 1993 and was shocked to see the damage caused by the diversion of 2 rivers by the Soviet Union. Ships laying grounded miles from the sea, villages that used to sit on the shore abandoned now 30 to 40 kilometres from that same sea. It was horrifying but I was also aware that on a global scale the planet would change little, although for millions of people it was a disaster.

    My point is that these projects were intended to help and enrich people but ultimately not only impoverished those around the Aral Sea but the failure of the intended irrigation of the land made others suffer as well. The scientists who carried out these grand projects did not have all the data they needed to make a success of their projects and ultimately they failed and that is what I fear. The current understanding of the Global ecosystem is not good enough to make any decisions about how to deal with it. Lets not make the mistakes of the past and lets prepare properly for future action rather than rush headlong before we have all the intelligence.

    But then people like you would rather those like me (who you hysterically call a denier) would just go along with any and all mad cap ideas, without upsetting your apple cart by saying stop, wait, make sure you are making the right choices first. Well for the sake of my children I will not remain quiet and will continue to shout stop until the idiot politicians listen or at least give us a fair hearing.

    I will continue to keep the image of the Aral Sea in my head which will always serve to remind me what a cock up can be made by well meaning scientists who think they can control mother earth.

    Link to this
  19. 19. Trent1492 5:03 pm 05/7/2011

    45 acper Says: The true believers dismiss the effect of the sun on our climate.

    Trent Says: They are called scientist. They have thoroughly investigated the possibility of the Sun as cause and have falsified it. Do you know how? We can make several predictions about what a sun warming the planet should look like.

    1. If the sun is the cause then the whole atmosphere should warm up. Yet, what we find is that the stratosphere is cooling while the troposphere is warming.

    2. If the sun is the cause then the equator should warm the fastest and the higher latitudes the least. Again, we find the opposite.

    3. If the sun is the cause then days should warm faster than nights and larger a divergence between night time temperatures should be observed. Yet, we can see that it is the nights are warming faster than days and the diurnal temperature difference is getting less so. Again, exactly the opposite,

    4. If the Sun is responsible then summers should be warming faster than winters. Again, that is something that is acting exactly opposite of what would be expected.

    5. If the Sun’s activity is increasing then our instruments should detect the total solar irradiance. We have seen no such increase in the past thirty years.

    All of that I have listed is found in the peer reviewed literature. Three of the five on the list were predicted consequences of what atmospheric CO2 increase would like. Predictions first made back in 1896.

    If you do not wish to look like a gullible dupe then you need to start learning about what the scientist are actually saying and stop repeating mindless fossil fuel slogans.

    Link to this
  20. 20. Lazarus 8:09 pm 05/7/2011


    You do not really understand the nature of science. To cherry pick instances of science where there are unknowns and transpose that onto the science you want to deny is very disingenuous.

    Scientists understand basic school boy physics. Certain atmospheric gases and particles affect the energy balance of the planet. We know for certain that we have been adding gases that should increase the so called green house effect. Scientists have known for well over a century that doing this should increase global temperatures. Global temperatures have increased and the best candidate for the majority of that increase is the increase of green house gases (GHGs) that man has added. Confirmation has followed a long standing prediction. That is good science.

    Basic science also predicts that an increase in the planets atmospheric energy will eventually melt glaciers and ice caps, increase the energy available for storms and alter patterns of flooding and drought. There is now sufficient real data to show that such scientifically sound predictions are occurring and that a major driver of recent climate change is substantially down to man.

    I agree that we do need to do “massive amounts of research to truly understand this ecosystem” but research so far strongly suggests with a high degree of certainty (according to every credible scientific body) that the time is past for just researching worsening conditions and that we should be implementing policies that mitigate and adapt to these conditions.

    Your TV repair man analogy is a fallacy. If it was a scientist, say a doctor and cancer specialist, that said you had to take action against a 30% (your figures, science quotes 90% plus), chance of a serious medical condition and a second, third and even fourth opinion concurred, are you saying you would wait?

    Serious question; At what percentage of certainty do you need before acting? You have your 70% unknown, therefore 30% chance, (in your own, not sciences reckoning), do you want more than 50%? 90%? A solid 100%?

    Think logically, we are not getting research that suggests climate change is a non-problem in any way approaching the same numbers that research suggests it is a growing and near future problem. The conclusions from research are all going in one direction. You appear against all reason to be hoping that something may be found to make all this go away. I hope it is found but to live like it goes against all logic and science and is not a rational or even sceptical position to take.

    Link to this
  21. 21. The Iceman Cometh 11:06 am 05/8/2011

    The problems with Climategate and the UK Government’s attempts to whitewash it have been well covered in the blogosphere. Having followed that debate closely (and also been close enough to the IPCC process to know that the critics had a strong point), I fall into the group which agrees that there was a major scientific fraud perpetrated. The deletion of post-1960 tree-ring data to ‘hide the decline’ wasn’t just a neat trick, it was against the very fundamentals of the practise of science. The SciAm editors needs to follow this debate a bit more objectively before they flog tales such as this.

    Link to this
  22. 22. BBHY 11:07 am 05/8/2011

    "In 5 years or so we are going to start seeing a noticeable global cooling"

    I have been seeing predictions of cooling over and over and over and over since 1998. Every prediction of cooling has been wrong, completely wrong. The last time the Earth had even one month of average temperature lower than the long term average was in 1986.

    I hope in five years you are willing to change your views, but I suspect that you will still be asserting these false predictions.

    Link to this
  23. 23. BBHY 11:11 am 05/8/2011

    "but in fact cools from a reaction that our science cannot as yet predict."

    Well, when you have something more solid, please post it.

    Just saying that something might happen in the future that we can’t predict is not very useful.

    We actually have a pretty darn good handle on the heat imbalance on planet Earth. More heat is coming in than going out. That is not theory, speculation, or hypothesis. It is a directly measured fact.

    It is not "hysterical" to think that more heat coming in than going out is going to make the Earth hotter. That is simply common sense.

    Link to this
  24. 24. Travza 9:00 pm 05/8/2011

    I would be wary when asserting that a fraud has been perpetrated. Potholer54 does a series on youtube about climate change and the science supporting its existence. He covers numerous elements of the science supporting climate change in approachable and understandable ways. More importantly, he sites his sources within his videos so that one can actually fact check his statements.

    Imminent Ice Age Debunked:

    E-Mails That Have Been Hacked Point to a Conspiracy Debunked:

    Link to this
  25. 25. Travza 1:01 am 05/10/2011

    E-Mails That Have Been Hacked Point to a Conspiracy Debunked:

    Link to this
  26. 26. Bill Crofut 11:02 am 05/11/2011

    My attempt at digesting what is arguably one of the seminal papers on global warming [1] had to be put on hold (patience is not much of a factor in my daily existence). The problem for me was a lack of definition for the term, “proxy climate indicators.”

    However, Prof. Mann did provide a description: `”Multiproxy” methods exploit the complementary strengths of each of these proxies to reconstruct large-scale climate changes in past centuries.’ [2] Yet, he admitted the proxies used–tree-ring data, coral data, ice core data and historical documentary climate records–each has limitations. That does not seem to me to provide a significant level of confidence.

    [1] Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm K. Hughes. 1998. Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries. NATURE, Vol. 392, 23 April, pp. 770-787.

    [2] Michael E. Mann. 2002. The Value of Multiple Proxies. SCIENCE, vol 297, 30 August, pp. 1481-1482.

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Email this Article