Scientists Have Been Underestimating the Pace of Climate Change

Naomi Oreskes, Michael Oppenheimer, and Dale Jamieson published an article in Scientific American called “Scientists Have Been Underestimating the Pace of Climate Change,” which relate the ideas in their book Discerning Experts with the news that the Hadley Centre has led a recent effort in collecting more accurate data on ocean temperature to track the changing climate. After decades of faulty measurement, advanced measurements suggest that the oceans have risen 0.1°C more than previously thought. The fact that ocean temperatures are rising even faster than we thought, only amplifies the urgency needed in dealing with climate change. However, the correction also casts doubts on the credibility of climate change related estimations as there seems to be consistent underestimation.

Oreskes, Oppenheimer, and Jamieson noticed this pattern and analyze it in their book. They believe that it is deeply caused by climate skeptics and deniers arguing, with no basis or evidence, that scientist dramatically exaggerate the risks of climate change. However, that’s far from the truth. As it seems, scientists are more prone to underestimate the effects of the changing climate to make their predictions sounds more believable and less hyperbolic. Not only is it damaging to the integrity of the scientific community, but people aren’t getting accurate information and are being undersold on the urgency of the issue.

In their new book-Discerning Experts-Oreskes, Oppenheimer, and Jamieson look to observe how public pressure and reputation affect scientific experts and their findings. The trio “found little reason to doubt the results of scientific assessments, overall. We found no evidence of fraud, malfeasance or deliberate deception or manipulation. Nor did we find any reason to doubt that scientific assessments accurately reflect the views of their expert communities.” However, when dealing with severity and speed, scientists underestimated the impact and overestimate the time frame we have to prepare for the threats of climate change.

The three authors make a valid point that scientist fear public disagreement in regards to their information, and it’s not that they fear objection from valid and credible sources. However, suspect sources (who vote, elect officials, and even have a media presence) can react to what they think is “exaggerated data” and cause public disagreement. At that point, as we’ve seen many times before, lawmakers can easily justify their inaction by claiming that there is public disunion. However valid this may be, consistent underestimation seems like a long-term sacrifice for a short term gain. Of course compromising with lawmakers is going to be an important part of fighting climate change. However, the long term effects of the world thinking “it has more time and it won’t be as bad” is terrifying and immeasurable. The whole un-biased truth needs to be told; no matter what reaction follows, reporting the truth is the responsibility of scientists and researches. Likewise, lawmakers have the responsibility of taking action and the public has the responsibility of correctly educating themselves. Now if we all take responsibility, fighting climate change won’t come with public disunion.

To read their article in Scientific American, click here: “Scientists Have Been Underestimating the Pace of Climate Change,” by Naomi Oreskes, Michael Oppenheimer, and Dale Jamieson.