Moving Past the IPCC "Scandals"

Scientists have mounted a full-throated defense of the U.N.'s International Panel on Climate Change. Well, as full-throated as scientists get, in any case. The global clearinghouse of climate science, which won the Noble prize in 2007, has recently taken a totally unwarranted beating in the media over a couple of minor errors in their 2007 report.

A letter signed by over 250 American scientists defends the quality of the science and the soundness of the IPCC process. They rightly - if belatedly - assert that the significance of these errors has been "greatly exaggerated by many sensationalist accounts" in the media. They propose strengthening the IPCC's quality-control mechanism in order to minimize the chance of future errors. If and when errors do emerge, the scientists say, they should be promptly and fully addressed on the internet. In a gutsy attempt to join the 21st century, they even suggest using a website to respond to erroneous reports of errors (read: disinformation): "we cannot let misperceptions fester anymore than errors go uncorrected."

Reading over the letter, I was struck once again by the size of IPCC collaboration and the rigor of its existing review process: 450 lead authors, assisted by another 800 scientists from all continents, pulled together 18,000 citations to write 2007's Fourth Assessment Report (that's the report that comprehensively documents the state of knowledge about climate change). Then, 2,500 reviewers provided a total of 90,000 comments, each of which was given due consideration.

Simply put, never have so many people executed so large a synthesis of so vast a field of knowledge, or combed through it so carefully. To me, this is a source of credibility. Skeptics, though, will probably never be convinced.

And this is not a trivial issue - scientists depend on their credibility. The public must view them as legitimate experts, or they risk losing their funding, their professional autonomy, and their ability to influence the political debate. As sociologist Steven Epstein points out, many factors can dim the public's trust in scientists and their science: "instances of scientific fraud, malpractice, and incompetence; ... the perception that scientists are "crossing the line" into politics or advocacy; admissions of uncertainty on the part of experts; and dogmatic professions of overcertainty."

This helps explain why climate scientists are often skittish about engaging with the media. First off, they fear their work will be misrepresented in damaging ways. The topic is highly technical, science journalism is in severe decline, and the media smells ratings in controversy, so this concern is reasonable and borne out by the recent "scandal."

Secondly, scientists want to be seen as neutral and apolitical experts. This is a tall order, though, when one side has explicitly set out to politicize the science. In today's fact-starved media environment, repetition is all it takes to sow doubt and drag a scientific consensus back into the sphere of legitimate debate.

Ironically, then, it was this very lack of media engagement that left climate scientists open to denialist attacks on their credibility. All the IPCC-bashers had to do was spin minor errors into scientific fraud. The mainstream media, eager for controversy and loathe to fact-check, amplified these distortions through shoddy "he said, she said" journalism.

Climate scientists are right to blame them. The folks at Realclimate are pretty indignant: "It is not up to us as climate scientists to clear up this mess – it is up to the media world itself to put this right again ... We will follow with great interest whether the media world has the professional and moral integrity to correct its own errors."

However, that is precisely the wrong lesson to draw from the recent media storm-in-a-teacup. An industry in crisis is not going to suddenly heal itself.

The fact of the matter is that climate scientists are facing a credibility crisis, a crisis instigated by opponents who are relentless and who don't play by the rules. For their sake, and for ours, climate scientists must understand that they are in a "street fight," as an excellent Nature editorial put it, and act accordingly.

The first step is recognizing the all-important role of messaging and media presence and becoming better communicators.

On that front, writing a joint letter can't hurt, but it won't help much either. To secure their credibility and reclaim the public conversation, scientists must jump into the fray in a big way. They must drive their message and actively counter disinformation on the web, in the op-ed pages, and on cable news.

Of course, this communication strategy must well thought-out to be effective. A lively debate is forming about how to do just that.

Undeniably, climate scientists who choose to go public shoulder a heavy burden. Public outreach has no professional or monetary reward, it is time-consuming, it interferes with academic life, and opens them up to smears and threats. As activists, we need to stand with them.

Photo credit: www.openletterfromscientists.com