"The scientific reputation of Professor Jones
and CRU remains intact. We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to
challenge the scientific consensus... that 'global warming is happening [and] that it
is induced by human activity'."
— UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
In recent months, reports of controversial incidents associated with the science of climate change have made headlines around the world. Emails obtained from a climate research centre at the University of East Anglia, along with minor errors in a 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), have provoked questions about climate science and research practices.
Scientists and experts have responded to those questions, demonstrating that many of the allegations are unfounded.
Our analysis shows that the scientific basis for reducing greenhouse gas emissions remains as compelling as ever.
Pembina's analysis: the science stands
BACKGROUNDER: Download Pembina's analysis of the state of climate science
Pembina's climate change analysts dug into the controversies to prepare a backgrounder looking carefully at each of the recent incidents, including:
- the so-called "Climategate" controversy;
- the IPCC's error concerning the rate of glacial melting in the Himalayas;
- other allegations against the IPCC's 2007 Fourth Assessment Report;
- contentions that global warming is slowing down.
We concluded that the science of climate change remains very sound and defensible, while acknowledging the importance of transparency within the research community.
Investigations into the stolen emails are ongoing, but a rigorous international scientific inquiry, along with reviews by the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, the Associated Press, and Penn State University have concluded the correspondence shows no evidence that climate scientists altered data.
Overall, our analysis found that the urgency of the issue and the case for action remains unchanged.
Experts affirm confidence in climate science
In the wake of the controversy, experts from around the world have responded, emphatically and repeatedly affirming their confidence in the current state of climate science.
A rigorous scientific inquiry conducted by an international panel of experts recently reaffirmed the integrity of research conducted by the CRU. The review was led by Lord Oxburgh, the former chair of the UK House of Lords science and technology select committee, and panel members were recommended by the Royal Society (the UK's national academy of science). The review concluded:
"We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it. Rather we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention."
A group of scientists from six federal departments prepared a briefing note for Environment Minister Jim Prentice after the "Climategate" allegations first arose. The note, obtained by the Pembina Institute through an Access to Information request, states:
"The department continues to view the IPCC AR4 [Fourth Assessment Report] as the most comprehensive and rigorous source of scientific information for climate change negotiations."
"There is no scientific assessment process extant that is as thoroughly reviewed as the IPCC process. In addition, the key IPCC assessments are supported by multiple lines of evidence, multiple lines of data wherever possible."
In response to the stolen emails controversy, 1700 UK scientists released a joint statement emphasizing the reality of climate change:
"We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. The evidence and the science are deep and extensive."
A similar letter from 250 top U.S. scientists sent to federal government agencies upholds the credibility of climate research:
"Many in the popular press and other media, as well as some in the halls of Congress, are seizing on a few errors that have been found in the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in an attempt to discredit the entire report.
None of the handful of mis-statements (out of hundreds and hundreds of unchallenged statements) remotely undermines the conclusion that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal" and that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely due to observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."
Nature, a peer-reviewed scientific journal of international renown, responded to the allegations against climate scientists in an editorial entitled "Climate of Fear" on March 10, stating:
"The core science supporting anthropogenic global warming has not
changed. This needs to be stated again and again, in as many contexts
as possible. Scientists must not be so naive as to assume that the data
speak for themselves. Nor should governments."
An earlier editorial responding to the stolen emails provides a more detailed explanation about why Nature remains confident in the conclusions of climate science:
"Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real — or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails.
"First, Earth's cryosphere is changing as one would expect in a warming climate. These changes include glacier retreat, thinning and areal reduction of Arctic sea ice, reductions in permafrost and accelerated loss of mass from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. Second, the global sea level is rising. The rise is caused in part by water pouring in from melting glaciers and ice sheets, but also by thermal expansion as the oceans warm. Third, decades of biological data on blooming dates and the like suggest that spring is arriving earlier each year."
Online resources
Skepticalscience.com tests the arguments of climate change skeptics against peer-reviewed scientific literature. The website aims to "remove the politics from the debate" about global warming. It includes an iPhone application that explains and refutes myths about climate change.
Climateprogress.org dives right into the politics of climate change, while providing an overview and analysis of the latest news, research and political developments around issues such as energy use and climate policy. The website is edited by Dr. Joseph Romm, who holds a PhD. in physics from MIT and directed a $1 billion program of research, development, demonstration, and deployment of clean energy and carbon-mitigating technology under the Clinton administration.
Realclimate.org offers a place for working climate scientists to discuss the latest developments in their field and respond to media coverage of climate change issues. With detailed and heavily referenced responses to the arguments of climate change skeptics, Real Climate provides excellent resources for readers looking to take their understanding of the climate change debate to the next level.
Climate video series: Peter Hadfield, a veteran science journalist, explains climate change myths and misconceptions, and examines the facts behind the recent claims against climate scientists.
More...