Climatic Change

, Volume 119, Issue 3–4, pp 547–558 | Cite as

Climategate: the role of the social sciences



As has been widely documented, lavishly funded media campaigns by political and financial elites and corporations with vested interests against climate policy are a central instigator of the climate backlash and a threat to democratic processes. However, it would behoove the environmental coalition, including sympathizing academics, to reflect on how they help create conditions that enable and magnify the impact of the backlash campaigns and incidents such as Climategate. This editorial argues that prevalent idealized understandings of science increase public vulnerability to backlash campaigns, and that academic analysts reinforce these understandings when they avoid to perform critical analyses of the science and scientists promoting concern about climate change.


Climate Policy Climatic Research Unit Climate Science Anthropogenic Climate Change Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Alic J, Sarewitz D, Weiss, Bonvillian (2010) A new strategy for energy innovation. Nature 466:316–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderegg WRL, Prall JW, Harold J (2010) Reply to O’Neill and Boykoff: objective classification of climate experts. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107(39):E152BBC, Climate scepticism ‘on the rise,’ BBC poll shows., 7 February 2010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. BBC (2010) Climate scepticism ‘on the rise,’ BBC poll shows., 7 February 2010
  4. Beck U (1992) The risk society: towards a new modernity. Sage, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
  5. Bray D (2010) The scientific consensus of climate change revisited. Environ Sci Policy 13:340–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown VA, Harris JA and Russell JY (2010) Tackling wicked problems: through the transdisciplinary imagination. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Buttel F, Taylor P (1994) Environmental sociology and global environmental change: a critical assessment. In: Redclift MJ, Benton T (eds) Social theory and the global environment. Routledge, London and New York, pp 228–255Google Scholar
  8. Cohen J and Agiesta J (2009) On environment, Obama and scientists take hit in poll. Washington Post, 18 Dec. ( 22 December 2009
  9. Curry J (2011) Reasoning about climate uncertainty. Clim Chang 108:723–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Demeritt D (2001) The construction of global warming and the politics of science. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 91(2):307–337Google Scholar
  11. Demeritt D (2011) Book review symposium: commentary 1. Prog Hum Geogr 35(1):132–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dunlap RE, McCright AM (2010) Climate change denial: sources, actors and strategies. In: Lever-Tracy C (ed) Routledge handbook of climate change and society. Routledge, London and New York, p Ch. 14Google Scholar
  13. Fischer MMJ (2003) Emergent forms of life and the anthropological voice. Duke University Press, Durham, NC; LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Funtowicz S, Ravetz J (1992) Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of post-normal science. In: Krimsky S, Golding D (eds) Social theories of risk. Praeger, Westport, pp 215–228Google Scholar
  15. Gillis J (2010) British Panel Clears Scientists. New York Times, 7 July.
  16. Gillis J and Kaufman L (2011) New Trove of Stolen E-Mails From Climate Scientists Is Released. The New York Times, 22 November.
  17. Grundmann R (2012) The legacy of ‘climategate’: undermining or revitalizing climate science and policy? WIREs Clim Change 3:215–222Google Scholar
  18. Grundmann R, Stehr N (2010) Climate change: what role for sociology? – a response to Constance Lever-Tracy. Curr Sociol 58(6):897–910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. House of Commons (2010) The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. In Science and Technology Committee - Eighth Report (ed.): Session 2009–10, p.
  20. Hulme M (2009) Why We disagree about climate change: understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) Fourth Assessment Report.
  22. Jamieson D (2008) Ethics and the environment: an introduction. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jasanoff S (2004) The idiom of co-production. In: Jasanoff S (ed) States of knowledge: the co-production of science and social order. Taylor & Francis, Inc., London, pp 1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jasanoff S (2010) Science and society. Testing time for climate science. Science 328(5979):695–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jasanoff S (2012) Cosmopolitan knowledge: climate science and global civic epistemology. Chapter 9. In: Dryzek JS, Schlossberg D, Norgaard RB (eds) Oxford handbook of climate change and society. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 129–143Google Scholar
  26. Kintisch E (2009) Stolen e-mails turn up heat on climate change rhetoric. Science 326(5958):1329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Krosnick JA (2010) The climate majority. The New York Times, 8 June.
  28. Lahsen M (1999) The detection and attribution of conspiracies: the controversy over chapter 8. In: Marcus GE (ed) Paranoia within reason: a casebook on conspiracy as explanation. Late editions 6, cultural studies for the end of the century. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 111–136Google Scholar
  29. Lahsen M (2005a) Seductive simulations: uncertainty distribution around climate models. Soc Stud Sci 35:895–922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lahsen M (2005b) Technocracy, democracy and U.S. Climate science politics: the need for demarcations. Sci Technol Hum Values 30(1, Winter):137–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lahsen M (2008) Experiences of modernity in the greenhouse: a cultural analysis of a physicist “trio” supporting the conservative backlash against global warming. Glob Environ Chang 18(1):204–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lahsen M (2012) Climategate and the virtue of the scientific community: an editorial commentary on the Maibach et al. and Grundmann opinion articles. WIREs Clim Change 3:279–280Google Scholar
  33. Lahsen M (2013) Anatomy of dissent: a cultural analysis of climate skepticism. American Behavioral Scientist. doi: 10.1177/0002764212469799
  34. Lakoff G (2010) Why it matters how we frame the environment. Environ Commun 4(1):70–81Google Scholar
  35. Latour B (1993) We have never been modern. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  36. Leiserowitz A, Maibach E, Roser-Renouf C and Hmielowski JD (2011) Politics & global warming: democrats, republicans, independents, and the tea party. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. 10 October 2011
  37. Leiserowitz AA, Maiback EW, Roser-Renouf C, Smith N and Dawson E (2012) American Behavioral Scientist. doi: 10.1177/0002764212458272
  38. Maibach E, Leiserowitz A, Cobb S, Shank M, Cobb K (2012) The legacy of ‘climategate’: undermining or revitalizing climate science and policy? WIREs Clim Change 3:223–229Google Scholar
  39. McCright AM (2007) Dealing with climate change contrarians. In: Moser SC, Dilling L (eds) Creating a climate for change: communicating climate change and facilitating social change. University of Cambridge, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  40. Merton RK (1973 (1942)) The normative structure of science. In: Storer NW (ed) The sociology of science: theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  41. Muir R, Boulton G, Eyton D and Norton J (2010) The independent climate change e-mails review. 22 September 2010
  42. Nagel J, Dietz T and Broadbent J (2010) Workshop on sociological perspectives on global climate change. American Sociological Association. National Science Foundation
  43. Nisbet MC (2009) Communicating climate change: why frames matter for public engagement. Environment Magazine (March-April)
  44. O’Neill SJ, Boykoff M (2010) Climate denier, sceptic or contrarian? Proc Natl Acad Sci 107(39):E151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Oreskes N (2007) The scientific consensus on climate change: How do we know we’re not wrong? In: DiMento JF, Doughman P (eds) Climate change: What it means for us, our children, and our grandchildren. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 65–99Google Scholar
  46. Oreskes N, Conway EM (2010) Merchants of doubt: how a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. Bloomsbury Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Oreskes N, Shrader-Frechette K, Belitz K (1994) Verification, validation, and confirmation of numerical models in the earth sciences. Science 263:641–646Google Scholar
  48. Oreskes N, Smith L, Stainforth D (2010) Adaptation to global warming: Do climate models tell us what we need to know? Philos Sci 77:1012–1028Google Scholar
  49. Oxburgh R, Davies H, Emanuel KE, Graumlich L, Hand D and Huppert H, Kelly (2010) Report of the international panel set up by the University of East Anglia to examine the research of the Climatic Research Unit., 14 April, p.
  50. Pearce F (2010a) The climate files: the battle for the truth about global warming. Guardian Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  51. Petersen A (2011) Climate simulation, uncertainty and policy advice – the case of the IPCC chapter 3. In: Gramelsberger G, Feichter J (eds) Climate change and policy: the calculability of climate change and the challenge of uncertainty. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 91–112Google Scholar
  52. Pielke Jr. R (2010) The climate fix. Basic BooksGoogle Scholar
  53. Pinch TJ, Bijker WE (1984) The social construction of facts and artefacts: or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Soc Stud Sci 14:399–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Prins G, Galiana I, Green C, Grundmann R, Korhola A, Laird F, Nordhaus T, Pielke Jnr R, Rayner S, Sarewitz D, Shellenberger M, Stehr N, Tezuko H (2010) The Hartwell paper: a new direction for climate policy after the crash of 2009. Institute for Science, Innovation & Society, University of Oxford; LSE Mackinder Programme, London School of Economics and Political Science, LondonGoogle Scholar
  55. Rayner S, Malone EL (eds) (1998) Human choice and climate change. Batelle Press, Columbus, OhioGoogle Scholar
  56. Rosenberg S, Vedlitz A, Cowman, Zahran S (2010) Climate change: a profile of US climate scientists’ perspectives. Clim Chang 101:311–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sarewitz D (2000) Science and environmental policy: an excess of objectivity. In: Frodeman R (ed) Earth matters: the earth sciences, philosophy, and the claims of community. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, pp 79–98Google Scholar
  58. Sarewitz D (2010) Curing climate backlash. Nature 464(4):28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sarewitz D (2011) Does climate change knowledge really matter? WIREs Clim Chang 2(4):475–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sarewitz D, Pielke RA Jr, Byerly R (eds) (2000) Prediction: decision-making and the future of nature. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  61. Somaiya R (2010) Third inquiry clears ‘climategate’ scientists of serious wrongdoing. Newsweek, 7 July.
  62. Strassel K (2009) The climate change climate change: the number of skeptics is swelling everywhere. The Wall Street Journal Online, 26 June ( 1 January 2010
  63. Timble SW (2010) If the science is solid, why stoop? An environmental scientist parses climategate. Acad Quest Spec Issue Sustain 23(1):54–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Toumey CP (1996) Conjuring science: scientific symbols and cultural meanings in American life. Rutgers University Press, New BrunswickGoogle Scholar
  65. van der Sluijs J, van Eijndhoven, Shackley S, Wynne B (1998) Anchoring devices in science for policy: the case of consensus around climate sensitivity. Soc Stud Sci 28:291–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Van der Sluijs J, van Est R, Riphagen M (2010) Room for climate debate: Perspectives on the interaction between climate politics, science and the media., Rathenau Instituut-Technology Assessment, The Hague
  67. Wynne B (2010) When doubt becomes a weapon. Nature 466(22):441–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Yearley S (2009) Sociology and climate change after Kyoto: what roles for social science in understanding climate change? Curr Sociol 57:389–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Earth System ScienceBrazilian Institute for Space Research (INPE)São PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations