Editorials in 2013

For the past six months Nature Climate Change has been offering authors the option of double-blind peer review. Here we report on some preliminary findings from the trial.

Limited progress was made in Warsaw towards a universal agreement on action over climate change.

Keeping politicians and the public informed about advances in climate science would benefit from the active participation of social scientists in the process.

Dealing with the impacts of climate change is better than suffering their full extent — even if it's not the best possible outcome — but to what extent are we doing so?

A well-organized global grassroots campaign for climate protection could eclipse the IPCC in political influence.

Lessons from addiction may help to transform our high-carbon lifestyle.

The effect of climate change on precipitation and flooding is of global concern.

A report that assesses a decade of extreme events provokes thoughts on weather, climate change and what is to come.

As the journal's first impact factor is released, it is time to reflect on journal metrics and how Nature Climate Change has been making its mark.

Countries met again at a new climate change meeting, but this time to work out solutions.

Many believe that double-blind peer review reduces referee bias, real or perceived.

Although a policy consensus regarding shale gas is emerging in the United States, arguments about fracking continue unabated in Europe.

People's acceptance of global warming can be influenced by many filters.

There are many barriers that must be overcome if South Africa is to control its greenhouse-gas emissions.

The success of Nature Climate Change in attracting an increasing number of high-quality submissions necessarily means that editorial criteria for publication are becoming steadily more demanding.

More commitment is needed in assessing and responding to climate-related risk.

California's newly inaugurated carbon-trading scheme should contribute to a cleaner, greener future.