Citing “some slippage” in public support of climate science and the scientists themselves in the wake of recent controversies, a Nature magazine editorial ( “A Question of Trust” ) points nonetheless to continued public support for action on climate change.

“The public seems to have done what the mainstream media could not: it has kept the scandals in perspective. The scathing verbal attacks on climate science and scientists are actually coming from a relative handful of critics, and they do not reflect a broader resurgence of skepticism.”

Trying to explain the continuing stalemate on meaningful climate change legislative and regulatory action, the respected magazine wrote that “People — politicians included — make decisions on the basis of self-interest and their own hopes, fears and values, which will not necessarily match what most researchers deem self-evident.”

“Facts do matter,” the magazine continued, but scientists need to engage the public “in a clear and compelling way” and must provide policymakers and the public and private sector interest credible and timely information.

“Scientists will be only as persuasive as they are trusted — which means that preserving and cultivating the public’s trust must be the scientific community’s top priority.” To earn and keep that trust, they “must increase transparency wherever possible,” playing up, rather than playing down, “the kinds of uncertainties and internal debates that scientists struggle with on a daily basis.” They need to “steer clear of hype and rein in exaggerations” about global warming risks and counter professional climate doubters “with facts as a matter of course” while welcoming legitimate fears and legitimate criticism.

Concluding that climate science is sufficiently robust that broad conclusions cannot be undermined by “questions about any given datum point,” the Nature editorial concludes that “the fact that climate scientists can’t predict exactly how bad the impacts might be could well be the best argument for action.”