Sir

The valuable Commentary by Hans von Storch and Nico Stehr1 is of critical importance for what it tells us about the cultural context of climate change and impacts research. However, we do not agree with some of the authors' more rhetorical statements.

First, the authors go from a description of how climate change has been perceived in the past to a claim that current impact assessments are simplistic: a scientific judgement. Surely the historical facts don't tell us whether or not a contemporary climate impact analysis is simplistic.

Second, the authors state that climate change is occurring, but that claims about significant future impacts are only a hypothesis. Of course, the science of analysing climate-change impacts is in its early stages, and there is much more uncertainty about the precise nature of those impacts than about whether climate change will happen. But this is not because our information about future impacts is hypothetical whereas that about current climate changes is not. There is a vast literature in the climate-impacts field that criticizes past work as simplistic and argues for more sophisticated approaches (for example, discussions about the ‘naive farmer’ hypothesis). This is a normal progression, not a sign of fatal weakness.

Studies on global water and food security2,3 and regional case studies on impacts and adaptation4,5,6,7,8 illustrate that the dialogue has become much more mature. The ‘apocalyptic scenario’ has been replaced by genuine concerns about how climate change will exacerbate food, water and health problems in many countries.

The real value of the historical analysis in the Commentary is the cultural context it provides for research on climate change and impacts. In turn, this gives us an important indication of how the climate issue may play out in the public arena; about how it may be interpreted by politicians, members of the public and others; and about possible reactions and responses to climate-policy initiatives. To grapple effectively with these questions, we need more integrated analysis that takes into account such historical, philosophical and social-scientific questions.