Correspondence

Nature 463, 25 (7 January 2010) | doi:10.1038/463025a; Published online 6 January 2010

Climate e-mails: man's mark is clear in thermometer record

Hans von Storch1 & Myles Allen2

  1. Institute for Coastal Research, 21502 Geesthacht, Germany
    Email: hvonstorch@web.de
  2. Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PU, UK

We welcome debate about the ethics of science prompted by the language of some of the hacked e-mails from the UK Climatic Research Unit (Nature 462, 545; 2009). Rightly or not, this has created concerns about the scientific process. But it is critical to point out that no grounds have arisen to doubt the validity of the thermometer-based temperature record since 1850.

Both the detection of climate change and its attribution to human activities rely on the thermometer-based temperature record (compiled by the Climatic Research Unit and other institutions). They do not rely on proxy reconstructions of temperature over the past millennium, which are based on indirect evidence such as tree rings. Reconstructions contribute less to our understanding of climate than the thermometer record because of uncertainty both in these reconstructions and in the drivers of climate change before the twentieth century.

Unfortunately, the mainstream media have confused the two. The thermometer record shows unequivocally that Earth is warming, and provides the main evidence that this is caused by human activity. This crucial record remains unchallenged.

Commentators have suggested that the e-mails disclose a 'team mentality' among prominent climate scientists. Some people may have gone too far in promoting particular viewpoints, so an independent enquiry and open discussion should help to re-establish public confidence. However, it is absurd to suggest that there is some kind of global conspiracy involving all climate scientists.

We and our colleagues have worked with the scientists at the centre of this controversy. We have examined, used and at times criticized their data and results — just as they, at times, have criticized ours. Our disagreements have no bearing on our respect for other aspects of their work.

See also Climate e-mails: lack of data sharing is a real concern.

Contributions may be submitted to Email: correspondence@nature.com. Please refer to the Guide to Authors at http://go.nature.com/cMCHno. They should be no longer than 300 words. Published contributions are edited. Science publishing issues are regularly featured at http://blogs.nature.com/nautilus, where we welcome comments and debate.


Readers' Comments

If you find something abusive or inappropriate or which does not otherwise comply with our Terms and Conditions or Community Guidelines, please select the relevant 'Report this comment' link.

There are currently no comments.

Add your own comment

This is a public forum. Please keep to our Community Guidelines. You can be controversial, but please don't get personal or offensive and do keep it brief. Remember our threads are for feedback and discussion - not for publishing papers, press releases or advertisements.

You need to be registered with Nature and agree to our Community Guidelines to leave a comment. Please log in or register as a new user. You will be re-directed back to this page.