Duality in climate science

Delivery of palatable 2 °C mitigation scenarios depends on speculative negative emissions or changing the past. Scientists must make their assumptions transparent and defensible, however politically uncomfortable the conclusions.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.


  1. 1

    Our Common Future under Climate Change—Outcome Statement (CFCC15 Scientific Committee, 2015); http://go.nature.com/WCKRsl

  2. 2

    Concluding Instalment of the Fifth Assessment Report IPCC Press Release (2 November 2014); http://go.nature.com/Xgwz7E

  3. 3

    The Emissions Gap Report 2014 (United Nations Environment Programme, 2014).

  4. 4

    Fuss, S. et al. Nature 4, 850–853 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report (eds Pachauri, R. K. et al.) (IPCC, 2014).

  6. 6

    IPCC Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).

  7. 7

    Global Carbon Atlas Emissions The Global Carbon Project; http://www.globalcarbonatlas.org/?q=en/emissions

  8. 8

    Anderson, K. et al. Energy Policy 36, 3714–3722 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Anderson, K. & Bows, A. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 369, 20–44 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Frame, D. et al. Nature Geosci. 7, 692–693 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Cement Technology Road Map 2009 (International Energy Agency, 2009); http://go.nature.com/Ao4ZcH

  12. 12

    Energy Technology Perspectives 2014 (International Energy Agency, 2014); http://go.nature.com/CLk8Tf

  13. 13

    Hammond, G. et al. Energy Policy 52, 103–116 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


I thank G. Peters and R. Andrew from CICERO, Oslo, for guidance with the IPCC scenario database and global cement emissions, respectively; K. West from the IEA, Paris, for information related to IEA cement scenarios; and M. Sharmina and J. Kuriakose for deforestation scenarios, and A. Bows-Larkin and J. Broderick for carbon budgets, from the Tyndall Centre, Univ. Manchester.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kevin Anderson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Anderson, K. Duality in climate science. Nature Geosci 8, 898–900 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2559

Download citation

Further reading


Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing