IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/wirecc/v3y2012i3p289-295.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The legacy of climategate: undermining or revitalizing climate science and policy?

Author

Listed:
  • Edward Maibach
  • Anthony Leiserowitz
  • Sara Cobb
  • Michael Shank
  • Kim M. Cobb
  • Jay Gulledge

Abstract

In mid‐November 2009, emails were removed without authorization from a University of East Anglia server and posted to the internet; within 24 h an international scandal was born—alleging fraud by leading climate scientists—which almost immediately became known as climategate. Multiple investigations concluded that no fraud or scientific misconduct had occurred. Despite the exonerations, however, the email controversy has had impacts, both negative and positive. On the negative side, a small minority of the American public and a somewhat larger minority of American TV news professionals—mostly political conservatives—indicated that the controversy made them more certain that climate change is not happening, and undermined their trust in climate scientists. Conservative organizations and politicians continue to cite the controversy in justifying their opposition to government action on climate change. On the positive side, the controversy impressed upon the climate science community the need for improved communication and public engagement efforts, and many individuals and organizations have begun to address these needs. It also reminded the climate science community of the importance of transparency, data availability, and strong quality assurance procedures, stimulating many organizations to review their data management practices. Although it is too soon to gauge the lasting legacy of the controversy, if the climate science community takes it as an opportunity to improve its already high standards of scientific conduct—as well as improve its less well‐developed approach to public engagement—the long‐term prognosis is good. WIREs Clim Change 2012 doi: 10.1002/wcc.168 This article is categorized under: Social Status of Climate Change Knowledge > Knowledge and Practice

Suggested Citation

  • Edward Maibach & Anthony Leiserowitz & Sara Cobb & Michael Shank & Kim M. Cobb & Jay Gulledge, 2012. "The legacy of climategate: undermining or revitalizing climate science and policy?," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(3), pages 289-295, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:wirecc:v:3:y:2012:i:3:p:289-295
    DOI: 10.1002/wcc.168
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.168
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/wcc.168?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Christopher Benjamin Menadue & Kristi Giselsson & David Guez, 2020. "An Empirical Revision of the Definition of Science Fiction: It Is All in the Techne . . ," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(4), pages 21582440209, October.
    2. Sujatha Raman & Warren Pearce, 2020. "Learning the lessons of Climategate: A cosmopolitan moment in the public life of climate science," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(6), November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:wirecc:v:3:y:2012:i:3:p:289-295. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1757-7799 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.