SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " ipcc " 26 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
IPCC scientists vow to press on with climate reports despite political deadlock
After governments again failed to agree a timeline, nearly 120 IPCC authors pledged to complete their assessment on time and with full scientific rigour
IPCC scientists vow to press on with climate reports despite political deadlock
After governments again failed to agree a timeline, nearly 120 IPCC authors pledged to complete their assessment on time and with full scientific rigour
Top global climate science body suspends meeting without deal on major review timeline
By Sudarshan Varadhan Oct 16 (Reuters) - A meeting of the members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was suspended without an agreement on a timeline to publish its next review of
Top global climate science body suspends meeting without deal on major review timeline
By Sudarshan VaradhanA meeting of the members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was suspended without an agreement on a timeline to publish its next review of the latest science on the warming planet, the IPCC said on Friday.The impasse over the timeline, which has lasted near…
Who shapes climate science? The equity question facing the IPCC
Early publication of the next global climate science assessment reports risks excluding scientists and research from the Global South, which are key to ensuring the findings are fair
Governments that support climate science must stand firm against naysayers
The IPCC is meeting to decide the timing of its next major report, as some countries try to delay it and weaken the case for faster emissions cuts
12 reactions · 3 comments | A politician allegedly killed for...
A politician allegedly killed for promoting health measures in the fight against Ebola. Health workers attacked, medical facilities put on fire. What's behind people's anger in response to aid in the...
Inside the Deadlock at the World's Top Climate Science Body
By Kate Abnett and Sudarshan Varadhan BRUSSELS/SINGAPORE, Oct 9 (Reuters) - The decision was expected to take minutes. But after nearly three years of debate, members of the world’s leading authority on climate change still can’t agree on a timeline to publish its next review of the latest science ...
Climate System Warning: The Hidden "Multiplier" Discovery That Has Scientists Deeply Worried - Futura-Sciences
The Unseen Threat: Nature’s Own Greenhouse Gas Emissions For years, the scientific consensus has been clear: today’s climate change is driven first and foremost by massive deforestation and, above all, greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. According to the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), this...
How Saudi oil scientists ended up working on the world’s most important climate reports
Guardian investigation reveals fossil fuel links of IPCC authors, with experts declaring the body’s conflict of interest policy ‘not fit for purpose’
What Does the Science of Climate Change Really Look Like?
Editor’s Note: This is the second in a three-part series on how the Right should think about environmental and climate policy. Read Chris Barnard on Reclaiming Environmental Policy from the Left. More than a decade ago, the world’s governments negotiated and signed the Paris Climate Agreement, committing to hold global warming well below 2 degrees Celsius. In the following years, climate had immense cultural power. Greta Thunberg emerged. Fortune 500 companies established net-zero plans. The U.S. got the Inflation Reduction Act. Then the pendulum swung back. President Donald Trump returned to the Oval Office, speaking of green energy as a “scam” and carbon footprints as a “hoax” and on all matters of international policy emphasizing bilateral engagement and power over globalism and cooperation. The technology companies that had been at the forefront of net-zero pledges and green leadership discovered the importance of all-of-the-above power to their visions for artificial intelligence and began quietly postponing or removing their targets. On the left side of the political spectrum, rising concerns about inflation and cost pushed climate lower down in the stated priorities of voters and stump speeches of politicians. The moment is ripe for a reset on the politics of climate change and for conservatives especially to chart a course that acknowledges and addresses the real challenges in plausible ways. So what should we think about climate change as we enter a post-peak climate era? If it is neither an apocalypse nor a hoax, what will hold up as a durable view of climate change? And how does it project onto the concerns and priorities of the right-of-center’s emerging coalition? New to Commonplace_? Subscribe below to get the magazine in your inbox._ Subscribe A Solid Foundation As the politics and economics of climate careened over the past ten years, the physics carried on regardless. In 2015, the year the Paris Climate Agreement was adopted, the world emitted 41.2 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide. By 2025, emissions had risen only 2.4%, to 42.2 gigatonnes, because falling emissions from land use offset increasing emissions from fossil fuels. But slow growth in annual emissions is not rapid decline, let alone net-zero, so carbon dioxide kept accumulating in the atmosphere, going from 399 to 426 parts per million. Global temperature kept rising too, from about 1.1 degrees Celsius above the 1850–1900 average in 2015, to 1.4 degrees above it in 2025. None of this should surprise anyone. Even most prominent skeptics, like the authors of the 2025 report commissioned by the Trump administration’s Department of Energy, accept the basic physics. Carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere at industrial volumes accumulates and traps heat that would otherwise escape to space. That heat warms the upper ocean and increases temperatures at the surface. Increased ocean heat and melting of land ice cause sea levels to rise. Changes in the climate become noticeable to us as subtle shifts in temperature and precipitation, seasons arriving early or late, changes in the surrounding ecosystem, and weather extremes. The much more meaningful debate is not about whether these things are happening, but about what it all means for human societies. (While it is a proxy measure of overall risk, no one experiences global surface temperature.) This debate invokes at least three interesting questions: how much today’s warming is showing up in regional climate trends, how much more warming we should anticipate, and how extreme weather events can be understood in the context of climate change. Recent scientific advances give us new insights into each of these, but there is still much to learn. This is the context in which the next generation of conservative leaders will be the first to deal with significant climate change as a fact, not a forecast. It will be with them for their entire careers. Our evolving scientific picture of climate change will come from weather and climate records stretching further into the past, new kinds of observations in the present, better modeling tools for the future, and simply more time to observe the emergence of climate signals and their tangible effects on ecosystems and communities in the United States and around the world. The policy landscape will be shaped by not only the impacts of changes in the climate, but also by the ways in which societies respond and by the emergence of new technologies for both altering the trajectory of emissions and adapting to new climate realities. Global climate records now show the fingerprints of warming in different phenomena around much of the world. The IPCC, in its most recent assessment report, documents warming trends over all land regions, even as natural variability adds substantial variance to local trends. And the highest temperature extremes have become more intense and frequent, almost everywhere, since the 1950s. Scientists are highly confident that these changes are attributable to human influence. But confidence in detecting trends and attributing them to human influence degrades across heavy precipitation events; drought trends are heterogeneous and not attributable to human activity with great confidence. For hurricanes, tornadoes, and other severe storms there is even less confidence in trends or their relationship to climate change. In general, a fair summary of the evidence is that for well-observed phenomena, like surface temperature or heavy rainfall, with a clear relationship to warming, our multidecadal observations are consistent with human influence overcoming natural variability over long time periods and extremes increasing. For regions that are sampled more sparsely, or phenomena with a higher noise-to-signal ratio, we will need to observe them longer to understand the magnitude of the climate signal or improve dynamical understanding using models and observations together. But for Climate For those who can’t wait, we also have new techniques that attempt to understand the role climate change has in influencing particular extreme events. When the climate is changing and disaster strikes, it is natural to ask whether that disaster was somehow “caused” by climate change. For scientists and policymakers acting in good faith, answering that question helps develop a more accurate picture of the problem, how it may be getting worse, and what preparations we should be making to respond to it. It may, at some point, give some weight to how liability is assigned by courts or adaptation funding is distributed by society. But how we ask this question is extremely important. It is easy to get the analysis wrong by discounting the role that meteorology plays. As meteorologist Theodore Shepherd explained in a clear 2016 review of climate attribution methods, “if a weather or climate event is truly extreme in the present climate, then perforce it requires unusual meteorological conditions, which means that climate change is at most a contributing factor.” Share Scientists have two ways to probe climate as a contributing factor, both of which have entered media coverage of extreme weather events. One asks a probabilistic question: How much more likely is a particular event (e.g., a temperature record over a particular area) amid global warming? The answer involves using historical records and computer simulations to estimate the likelihood of such an event in both a changed and a preindustrial climate. The findings are less about the specific event, and more about events of that nature. The other question is: How has the changed climate affected the specific event in question? Here, scientists try to understand what a similar event would have looked like in the preindustrial climate. This is sometimes called the storyline approach, where the story is the specific meteorological details of the event. These methods offer ways to test the intuition of scientists about real weather extremes. In late June and early July of 2021, a persistent high-pressure ridge, or heat dome, set up over the Pacific Northwest and an extraordinary heat wave affected the area from Oregon to British Columbia. For six days, it shattered temperature records across the region and hundreds died from heat-related causes, in an area where such high, and persistently high, temperatures were well outside of experience and many live without air conditioning. Scientists have studied its connection to climate change using multiple approaches. This specific event was created by a rare combination of meteorological factors, a strong high-pressure ridge created the conditions for extreme heat, which occurred on top of higher average temperatures in the region from global warming. Probabilistic analyses showed that climate change increased the likelihood of such an event by at least 8-fold to more than 100-fold. One standout example found that such an event had effectively zero probability of occurring in the preindustrial climate. The enormous range in these assessments reflects how hard it is to estimate probabilities of events at the tail of the historical record. Estimates of the effect on the temperature of the event are more clustered. A recent review paper documents how multiple methodologies have found a positive influence, roughly 1-2 degrees Celsius of an anomaly that exceeded 15 degrees, of climate change on the temperature magnitude of the event. Multiple studies have investigated and found some positive influence of climate change in other extreme events. Attribution studies found climate likely increased the heavy rainfall that accompanied Hurricane Helene in North Carolina and surrounding regions in 2024. The extensive fires that struck Los Angeles in 2025 illustrate how the causal chain can become messy, though. Studies do detect a positive influence of climate on the event’s likelihood, but while climate change likely contributed to underlying aridity, it would not have played a role in the heavy winds or land practices that preceded disaster. These event attribution studies will become more common for extreme, or damaging, weather events. They can be produced quickly, and often are reported before peer review. As the Pacific Northwest heatwave example shows, when multiple methods converge on a positive attribution, the finding should probably carry some weight even if you have to be careful about accepting the results from a single study. I expect that as climate change proceeds and the climate thus departs further from a preindustrial counterfactual, the influence will become more detectable across a variety of extreme events and more easily identified. This will be used to cast blame, but can also be used to inform how communities and society adapt to ongoing change. We May Still Be Surprised One positive development, insofar as less climate change is better, has been that our central estimates for future climate change should probably be revised downward. Mostly, that is because the high-end warmings that scientists regularly analyzed about ten to 20 years ago, driven by high emissions throughout the twenty-first century, now appear to be somewhere between unlikely and impossible. At one time, the upper end of mainstream climate projections extended well into 4 to 6 degrees Celsius of warming by the end of this century, which, models suggest, would have wrought enormous real-world damage. Current energy and policy trends now point toward 2.5 or 3 degrees. Damages and risks are commonly modeled as increasing steeply with more warming, so this is already a better-than-previously-expected outcome for the climate (which is independent of the physical response to emissions). But we should maintain a wide range for plausible outcomes and prepare for the possibility of being surprised. Emissions trajectories are subject to deep uncertainty, the physical climate response is still developing, and whatever change occurs in the climate will then be mediated through unpredictable economic, social, and political institutions. Over the past decade, the pace of warming surprised some keen observers and appeared to accelerate, though not yet outside the range of expectation provided by climate models. The reasons for that apparent acceleration are being actively studied (as was the apparent pause in warming from 1998 to 2012), but no single driver has emerged. Some blame it on the El Niño, variability which would have no bearing on climate. Some think it is a result of factories in East Asia and global shipping fleets cutting aerosol emissions, which in the strongest version of the argument would indicate higher climate sensitivity to carbon-dioxide emissions. Others are more measured, not yet ready to draw solid conclusions as to whether climate projections require revision. We will have to see. Long-Term Thinking Climate change asks us to think over long time scales. But the pace of human-driven warming is compressing a large global change into a century. Changing weather patterns and extreme events are already causing adjustment costs and damages and will do more. Adaptation will help, but it is not free. For some communities, these costs will erode livelihoods and well-being, and may force migration. Are we prepared for large-scale managed retreats in the United States? Thankfully, American wealth, geographical diversity, and moderate climates may leave us better prepared than many around the world. But wealthy countries can still suffer serious disruption from narrowly concentrated costs, even if they appear entirely manageable in aggregate. Readers of Commonplace are familiar with the challenges of rapidly adapting to economic forces. The displacement that came from the China Shock is barely perceptible in aggregate GDP and employment data, but it affected millions of people and those people were far less mobile than economic models tended to assume. Deindustrialization rippled through the nation with enormous effects for not only our economic vitality, but also our national security. The forces surrounding climate change may not be so different; the world gets richer and must accept some diffuse costs. Those may be modest overall, but cause all manner of unpredictable effects with which policymakers must cope. In the case of the China Shock, our faith in a growing pie served us poorly. We’ll need to do better on climate. Leave a comment
Climate NGOs clash over the role of science in UN negotiations
Disagreements within Climate Action Network International have intensified over the IPCC's role in UN climate negotiations and the fairness of its models.
As science comes under attack at UN talks, climate movement splits over how to respond
A rift over how IPCC messages are produced and turned into policy is creating tensions in the world's most influential coalition of climate NGOs
Opinion: Did climate predictions hold up?
A retrospective analysis shows the 1990 IPCC report correctly predicted much of today's climate crisis due to lack of action.
A deep dive into climate change
Some policymakers continue to question the science of climate change, despite the growing evidence of significant damage to life on land and in the ocean.Katja Matthes, director of the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel in Germany, believes the ongoing attempts to politicise climate science and discredit researchers are hindering international cooperation and public understanding. The ocean provides clear evidence of the extent to which changes are occurring, she says.“We are seeing severe, unprecedented and accelerating changes in the ocean — warming ocean temperatures, acidification and oxygen depletion — that are destabilising the most important system that makes life on this planet possible,” Matthes explains. Visible signs of these changes include the melting of ice sheets in the Arctic and Greenland. Deeper down, the growing frequency of hypoxia — or oxygen-deprived “dead zones”, where marine life can no longer survive — in the Baltic and record-high Mediterranean surface temperatures are indicators of the “dramatic warming” of the ocean, she adds.The ocean, which covers around 70% of the Earth’s surface, acts as a vital carbon sink, absorbing around 30% of the planet’s carbon dioxide (CO2) and 90% of the excess heat. However, the global ocean surface temperature has risen by an average of half a degree Celsius since 1982, according to the EU Copernicus observatory. More significant rises have been recorded in the Mediterranean, Black, Baltic and other shallower seas.Some ocean temperature increases do occur naturally, such as during El Niño events. But sustained rises can trigger extreme weather on land — including droughts, floods and catastrophic storms — while also harming marine ecosystems. Only 10% of marine species have been studied, Matthes notes, “so the consequences might be even more severe than we know.”Fostering European cooperation amid uncertaintyMatthes, who holds a doctorate in meteorology, is a professor of atmospheric physics as well as director of GEOMAR. She serves as one of Kiel’s ambassadors to Science Comes to Town (SCTT), an EU-funded programme that aims to promote science’s role in society and strengthen cross-border collaboration in research, innovation and sustainability. SCTT is hosted by the coastal cities of Kiel, Brest (in France) and Split (in Croatia).The SCTT project also provides a platform for raising awareness and understanding between scientists and the public about major issues, such as climate change. Having worked on both sides of the Atlantic, Matthes is frustrated by recent attempts to erode decades of international climate collaboration and question the credibility of research. Earlier this year, the US administration delivered a major blow to global cooperation by withdrawing from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and other global climate organisations, claiming they were “contrary to the interests of the United States.”In addition, a US Department of Energy (DOE) report cast doubt on the latest IPCC climate assessment, which was published in 2024. As a contributing author to the IPCC study, Matthes says the DOE sought to discredit scientists like herself. “Climate change is not a matter of opinion, it really exists and we are witnessing dramatic changes,” she notes. “It’s not climate change as a whole that is being targeted, but scientists and their research.”Other US actions have also hit home for Matthes, who spent three years at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado. The White House has announced plans to close the facility, a move that was “pretty tough” due to the German scientist’s personal connections with the staff and their reputation for excellence.Changing the narrative on climate changeEurope’s scientific community remains a driving force on climate research and collaboration. As one of the world’s leading marine research institutions, GEOMAR attracts students from more than 50 countries and plays an important role in global observation initiatives that contribute to understanding and protecting the ocean basins. At a European level, GEOMAR works closely with other top marine research facilities, including France’s Ifremer, an SCTT partner in Brest. GEOMAR has also developed innovative and safe strategies for removing unexploded wartime munitions from the seabed, which release toxic substances that pose a danger to humans and the marine environment. Through the Horizon Europe MMinE-SwEEPER project, this knowledge has been transferred to the European level.These initiatives are examples of how local action can have a global impact, Matthes says, and how Europe can strengthen climate research and partnerships. “This is a chance for Europe to step up and work on climate cooperation and agreements,” she notes. “Climate change is an international problem and a real threat, and we need more speed on climate action than we have now.”Matthes believes her fellow scientists need to communicate that climate change is not only a threat, but an opportunity to find solutions. “We need to change our narrative and expand our strategic alliances with those who are willing,” she says, “and luckily there are a lot of willing people and countries.”Science|Business, which connects policymakers, academics and industry through its news reporting, analysis and events, is an SCTT partner.
A deep dive into climate change
Some policymakers continue to question the science of climate change, despite the growing evidence of significant damage to life on land and in the ocean.Katja Matthes, director of the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel in Germany, believes the ongoing attempts to politicise climate science and discredit researchers are hindering international cooperation and public understanding. The ocean provides clear evidence of the extent to which changes are occurring, she says.“We are seeing severe, unprecedented and accelerating changes in the ocean — warming ocean temperatures, acidification and oxygen depletion — that are destabilising the most important system that makes life on this planet possible,” Matthes explains. Visible signs of these changes include the melting of ice sheets in the Arctic and Greenland. Deeper down, the growing frequency of hypoxia — or oxygen-deprived “dead zones”, where marine life can no longer survive — in the Baltic and record-high Mediterranean surface temperatures are indicators of the “dramatic warming” of the ocean, she adds.The ocean, which covers around 70% of the Earth’s surface, acts as a vital carbon sink, absorbing around 30% of the planet’s carbon dioxide (CO2) and 90% of the excess heat. However, the global ocean surface temperature has risen by an average of half a degree Celsius since 1982, according to the EU Copernicus observatory. More significant rises have been recorded in the Mediterranean, Black, Baltic and other shallower seas.Some ocean temperature increases do occur naturally, such as during El Niño events. But sustained rises can trigger extreme weather on land — including droughts, floods and catastrophic storms — while also harming marine ecosystems. Only 10% of marine species have been studied, Matthes notes, “so the consequences might be even more severe than we know.”Fostering European cooperation amid uncertaintyMatthes, who holds a doctorate in meteorology, is a professor of atmospheric physics as well as director of GEOMAR. She serves as one of Kiel’s ambassadors to Science Comes to Town (SCTT), an EU-funded programme that aims to promote science’s role in society and strengthen cross-border collaboration in research, innovation and sustainability. SCTT is hosted by the coastal cities of Kiel, Brest (in France) and Split (in Croatia).The SCTT project also provides a platform for raising awareness and understanding between scientists and the public about major issues, such as climate change. Having worked on both sides of the Atlantic, Matthes is frustrated by recent attempts to erode decades of international climate collaboration and question the credibility of research. Earlier this year, the US administration delivered a major blow to global cooperation by withdrawing from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and other global climate organisations, claiming they were “contrary to the interests of the United States.”In addition, a US Department of Energy (DOE) report cast doubt on the latest IPCC climate assessment, which was published in 2024. As a contributing author to the IPCC study, Matthes says the DOE sought to discredit scientists like herself. “Climate change is not a matter of opinion, it really exists and we are witnessing dramatic changes,” she notes. “It’s not climate change as a whole that is being targeted, but scientists and their research.”Other US actions have also hit home for Matthes, who spent three years at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado. The White House has announced plans to close the facility, a move that was “pretty tough” due to the German scientist’s personal connections with the staff and their reputation for excellence.Changing the narrative on climate changeEurope’s scientific community remains a driving force on climate research and collaboration. As one of the world’s leading marine research institutions, GEOMAR attracts students from more than 50 countries and plays an important role in global observation initiatives that contribute to understanding and protecting the ocean basins. At a European level, GEOMAR works closely with other top marine research facilities, including France’s Ifremer, an SCTT partner in Brest. GEOMAR has also developed innovative and safe strategies for removing unexploded wartime munitions from the seabed, which release toxic substances that pose a danger to humans and the marine environment. Through the Horizon Europe MMinE-SwEEPER project, this knowledge has been transferred to the European level.These initiatives are examples of how local action can have a global impact, Matthes says, and how Europe can strengthen climate research and partnerships. “This is a chance for Europe to step up and work on climate cooperation and agreements,” she notes. “Climate change is an international problem and a real threat, and we need more speed on climate action than we have now.”Matthes believes her fellow scientists need to communicate that climate change is not only a threat, but an opportunity to find solutions. “We need to change our narrative and expand our strategic alliances with those who are willing,” she says, “and luckily there are a lot of willing people and countries.”Science|Business, which connects policymakers, academics and industry through its news reporting, analysis and events, is an SCTT partner.
Merchants of Doubt and the attacks on Extreme Event Attribution science
Last week, I attended a meeting at Columbia University on attribution science and climate law, hosted by the Sabin Center. It was a fantastic event, bringing together scientists and legal experts working at the intersection of extreme event attribution and climate law. Subscribe For those unfamiliar with it, extreme event attribution attempts to quantify the contribution of climate change to an extreme event. For example, several groups analyzed the impact of climate change on Hurricane Harvey’s enormous rainfall totals over Houston, Texas and they found that climate change increased rainfall by 15 to 38%. One thing that came up again and again was how terrified fossil-fuel interests are of extreme event attribution science. They are acutely aware that this research could land them in court. And losing those cases would leave them legally liable for billions of dollars in climate damages. Because the legal stakes are so high, the blowback has turned ugly. I spoke with several scientists at the meeting who are facing ongoing harassment over their work. This blowback is a coordinated campaign to make the entire field look suspect. The goal is to create the impression that attribution science is too uncertain, too political, or too conflicted to be useful in court or in public policy. The strategy is not based on actual science or evidence of misconduct, but on the generation of doubt. The new Merchants of Doubt We’ve seen this before. In fact, not that long ago: We only have to go back a year to the Department of Energy (DOE) Climate Working Group (CWG) report to see an example of using doubt as the tool to push back against well-established science. This strategy is laid out in an email from a member of the CWG, Dr. Roy Spencer, that was released during litigation over the Climate Working Group process. The key quote is: About all I can hope is that what we write will provide sufficient “reasonable scientific doubt” regarding the science claims in the 2009 TSD [technical support document], based upon almost 2 decades of new science, to call into question the original reasoning for the EPA Administrator’s decision that CO2 presents a threat to human health and welfare. This statement is strong evidence that at least some members of the committee were working to support a particular policy outcome: revoking the Endangerment Finding. The email also explains how they planned to do it: by attempting to generate “reasonable doubt”. This is going to be hard, Spencer implies. Despite falsely claiming that “2 decades of new science” weakens the case, Spencer explicitly acknowledges that the actual peer-reviewed science of climate change overwhelmingly rejects his position: But if the science argument is decided upon by a vote, or by the number of published citations, we lose the science argument. We can go back even further: This CWG email shares unmistakable DNA with the infamous 1969 tobacco memo that declared: “Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.” The tobacco memo also acknowledges the limit of this strategy: Like the CWG, they knew the science was not on their side. Share The new new Merchants of Doubt The people attacking the IPCC chapter on extreme event attribution are the newest iteration of the Merchants of Doubt. Their goal, like all Merchants before them, is to introduce doubt into the process. Because the report is not even out yet, they cannot attack its conclusions. So they are attacking the authors instead. Here is a press release from the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee: In the letter, the Chairmen express concerns about potential conflicts of interest involving members of the Attribution Committee, stating that “publicly available information suggests a troubling pattern” in which committee members are affiliated with nonprofits that support climate accountability lawsuits, “raising the appearance of impropriety and member bias.” To be clear, this is just innuendo. There is no actual evidence of bias. And given the robust process that these reports go through, including multiple lines of peer review, it seems very unlikely that significant bias can survive into the report. When the report comes out, critics will have the opportunity to make legitimate criticisms of the report — if any exist. If none do, however, they’ll still make criticisms, but they’ll be bogus, simply designed to generate doubt. We’ll see. A note to the press: Fix your frame To any journalists reading this: The public debate over extreme event attribution science is not going away. The science is simply too dangerous to fossil-fuel interests for them to stop fighting it. You very well might be assigned to write an article about this area of research in the future. When you do, do not automatically adopt the framing that climate misinformers want you to use. They want you to frame the story around questions like: Are climate scientists trying to put their thumb on the scale to achieve a predetermined, politically motivated result? Are climate scientists improperly letting their politics invade the science of the IPCC? That frame is a trap. Instead, you need to view this through the historical lens of the Merchants of Doubt. How does the ecosystem of doubt operate? Who funds it? What methods do they use to misrepresent science and slime researchers? What scientific results are they trying to keep people from understanding are legitimate? Ultimately, you instead need to focus your article on the generation of doubt as a way to maintain the fossil fuel industry’s social and legal license to keep burning oil, gas, and coal. If you treat the misinformers’ frame as a legitimate, good-faith scientific critique, you are helping them produce doubt. Don’t do it. Don’t be a Merchant of Doubt. Thanks for reading The Climate Brink! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support our work. Subscribe other stuff The Staying Curious Substack has an interesting post about the different flavors of climate sensitivity. This is crucial information if you want to understand how scientists think about how much warming the Earth will experience. I’d be grateful if you could hit the like button ❤️ below! It helps more people discover these ideas and lets me know what’s connecting with readers.
How Science Works
The 2nd Weather and Climate Livestream is now underway. It is organized by a group of early-career researchers concerned about declining funding for the field and eager to demonstrate how weather and climate research makes a difference in our lives. Last year’s event was a great success, drawing terrific press coverage including a piece in the NY Times. This year features a strong lineup of talks aimed at a general audience — I highly recommend tuning in. Share I gave a talk yesterday about How Science Works in Three Steps. You can see the short presentation here (I’ve appended a transcript below): And please tune into the livestream here. It runs through tomorrow at 6 pm ET. Thanks for reading The Climate Brink! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support our work. Subscribe Cleaned up transcript: Thank you, and thanks to everyone tuning in. I want to talk about something I think a lot of people don’t really understand: how science actually works. Arguments over any scientific topic — climate change, vaccines, you name it — revolve around competing claims. For climate change, the claims are: Is the Earth warming? Are humans to blame? What will the impacts be? Over the last 150 years, the scientific community has developed a remarkably robust method for sorting out which claims are true and which aren’t. That method is what I want to walk through. So how does science generate knowledge? If you ask a high schooler, they’ll give you the version they learned in ninth grade: an individual scientist forms a hypothesis, runs an experiment, and draws a conclusion. That’s more or less what happens at the individual level, though in practice it’s more iterative — you design, test, and refine all at once, landing on a slightly different idea each time until you reach a conclusion about whatever hypothesis you’ve ended up with. But this isn’t science. It’s only step one. Any individual scientist can make mistakes — scientists are human. Maybe there’s a bug in the code, maybe there’s an error in the experiment. Just because someone ran an experiment and reached a conclusion doesn’t mean it’s right, and scientists don’t treat a single result as settled truth. Step two is peer review, the first layer of quality control. The scientist writes up what they did and submits it to a journal, which sends the paper to other experts in the field. Those experts judge whether the methods are sound, whether it properly references prior work, and whether the conclusions actually follow from the data. Ask any scientist and they’ll tell you peer review is miserable — the comments come back brutal, often harsh, and you have to revise and resubmit, sometimes multiple times, before an editor finally accepts the paper. Peer review catches an immense amount of bad science, but it can’t catch all of it. Reviewers get sloppy or overworked, they miss obvious mistakes, and they can’t catch hidden errors — a bug in the code, a misread instrument. So a peer-reviewed paper making it into a journal doesn’t mean the paper is right. Nobody treats a single paper as the final word. That’s where step three comes in: the crucible of science. Important results get retested by the broader community. If you publish something interesting, it gets dissected. Sometimes people try to reproduce your work directly but more often they test its implications. If someone claims X is true, and that implies that Y is also true, then scientists will go check Y. If a claim survives this gauntlet long enough, it becomes accepted. That’s how we generate knowledge. Let me give an example: the ozone hole. In 1985 — and I doubt many people watching were around then, but I remember it well — Joe Farman and his colleagues published observations from Antarctica showing that a huge chunk of ozone was disappearing every year. This was shocking because most atmospheric chemists had expected ozone loss to occur at mid-latitudes and high altitudes, not over the South Pole. When scientists see something they don’t understand, they rush to explain it, and several competing hypotheses quickly appeared in the peer-reviewed literature. One pointed to chlorine chemistry from chlorofluorocarbons. A second blamed nitrogen chemistry, possibly driven by solar proton events — meaning the sun was responsible. A third argued it wasn’t chemistry at all but dynamics: winds were carrying naturally low-ozone air from the lower atmosphere up into the stratosphere. Then the community went to work testing which theory could survive the crucible. Aircraft flew into the ozone hole and found no nitrogen, ruling out the nitrogen theory. Measurements showed the air in the polar vortex was descending, not rising — which would bring high-ozone air down, eliminating the dynamics theory. Meanwhile, those same flights measured enormous amounts of chlorine, strongly correlated with exactly the regions where ozone was being destroyed. That became known as the “smoking gun” paper, and it established that chlorine chemistry was the cause. Through this process, a consensus emerged. And it’s worth being clear that this consensus is organic. There’s no vote, no poll, no meeting where it gets decided. Scientists go to conferences, talk to one another, and independently arrived at the same answer. It’s the ultimate free market of ideas. After the consensus was established, the peer-reviewed literature doesn’t even mention the rival theories — it simply takes chlorine chemistry as given. That’s what a consensus looks like. It doesn’t mean every single scientist agrees, but it does mean there’s no longer any legitimate debate. So where can you see what scientists actually think? It’s all in the peer-reviewed literature, which contains the entire historical record of the argument: the discovery, the competing theories, the debate, the testing, and finally the community coalescing around one answer. But there’s a lot of room for misrepresentation. You can dig up an old paper claiming the ozone hole was caused by dynamics and wave it around as if there still was a debate about the cause of the ozone hole — without mentioning that the idea was disproven long ago and that even its own authors no longer believe it. There’s a bigger problem, though: the peer-reviewed literature is written in a language I call “nerd.” It’s extremely hard to read — honestly, some of it is hard for me to follow. It takes graduate students years to work through the literature in a single field, so we can’t expect policymakers or ordinary people to do it. This is where scientific assessments come in. The most famous is the IPCC — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The job of an assessment is to read and summarize the peer-reviewed literature, synthesizing what’s settled, what’s been disproven, and what remains genuinely debated. To ensure the assessments accurately summarize the peer-reviewed literature, assessments are written by large teams, which are far less prone to bias than individuals and which dilute the influence of any one scientist with an axe to grind. The teams are deliberately assembled to avoid stacking the deck, and the reports themselves go through multiple rounds of peer review. That rigorous process is exactly why you can trust them and why people consider the IPCC to be the gold standard of what we know about the climate system. An assessment produced through a different process may well not be credible. You can even watch the consensus evolve across assessments. Take the attribution of warming. The 1990 IPCC report said the observed warming was broadly consistent with model predictions but also comparable to natural variability — in other words, we don’t know whether humans are responsible. By 1995, it concluded that the balance of evidence suggested a discernible human influence — a sentence only a committee could write, and one that barely commits to anything. By 2001, most of the warming over the previous 50 years was judged “likely” due to greenhouse gases; by 2007, “very likely”; by 2013, “extremely likely.” The 2023 report says essentially the same as 2013 — there’s not much stronger language available. So, to wrap up: science is our ultimate tool for deciphering the universe — the most successful method we’ve ever developed for determining what’s true and what isn’t. Our understanding is written into the peer-reviewed literature, so if you want to know what scientists think, that’s where to look. And for those of us who don’t speak nerd, scientific assessments are the Rosetta Stone — they translate nerd into English. Let me open the floor to questions. Thank you.
Letter to the Editor: The human cost of science getting it wrong
Patrick Newman cites one scientist calling RCP 8.5 ‘not implausible,’ yet the IPCC has now officially removed it as implausible. Notably, that same scientist said RCP 8.5 should be clearly labeled a high-end scenario. It…
A Science Policy Framework for the Climate Determinants of Health
In 2023, the World Health Organization (WHO) called climate change “the single biggest health threat facing humanity.” With warming at approximately 1.14°C above preindustrial levels and set to increase, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts with very high confidence that climate-related illness will also rise (IPCC, 2022). Under high-emissions scenarios, this science-policy body […]
A Science Policy Framework for the Climate Determinants of Health
In 2023, the World Health Organization (WHO) called climate change “the single biggest health threat facing humanity.” With warming at approximately 1.14°C above preindustrial levels and set to increase, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts with very high confidence that climate-related illness will also rise (IPCC, 2022). Under high-emissions scenarios, this science-policy body […]
After SBTi reset, some wonder if targets are still science-aligned
The old rules required certain companies to commit to unrealistically steep emissions cuts. But do the new regs break with IPCC recommendations on a 1.5-degree future?
Major United Nations Report Faces Budget Woes Amid Trump’s Pull Back
Without US backing and more money being spent than brought in, the IPCC’s trust fund could run out by 2028.
Opinion | How Trump can buy some global climate sanity for less than $2 million
The IPCC’s rigor keeps a lid on alarmism. The U.S. is needed to make sure that doesn’t change.
What Top Climate Scientists Think of Trump’s Treaty Withdrawals
Though the abandonment of international agreements is “a damn shame,” they say science will prevail.
To counter climate denial, UN scientists must be 'clear' about human role: IPCC chief
With US President Donald Trump and other sceptics calling climate change a hoax, the UN's climate science body must tell the world in a "very clear way" that humans are heating the planet, its chairman told AFP. Jim Skea, a Scottish professor, chairs the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which held a five-day meeting in a skyscraper outside Paris this week to begin drafting the next major UN climate assessment.I mean, we concluded in our last report, very simple conclusion: It is