Posts
Nature on Climategate
The journal Nature explained its position on the Climategate controversy in an editorial in today's issue. Here are a few highlights.
A fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support the denialists' conspiracy theories. In one of the more controversial exchanges, UEA scientists sharply criticized the quality of two papers that question the uniqueness of recent global warming (S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick Energy Environ. 14, 751–771; 2003 and W. Soon and S. Baliunas Clim. Res. 23, 89–110; 2003) and vowed to keep at least the first paper out of the upcoming Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Whatever the e-mail authors may have said to one another in (supposed) privacy, however, what matters is how they acted. And the fact is that, in the end, neither they nor the IPCC suppressed anything: when the assessment report was published in 2007 it referenced and discussed both papers.As for the papers published by Nature:
The stolen e-mails have prompted queries about whether Nature will investigate some of the researchers' own papers. One e-mail talked of displaying the data using a 'trick' — slang for a clever (and legitimate) technique, but a word that denialists have used to accuse the researchers of fabricating their results. It is Nature's policy to investigate such matters if there are substantive reasons for concern, but nothing we have seen so far in the e-mails qualifies.It also discusses issues of raw data.
If there are benefits to the e-mail theft, one is to highlight yet again the harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers, often in the form of endless, time-consuming demands for information under the US and UK Freedom of Information Acts. Governments and institutions need to provide tangible assistance for researchers facing such a burden.
2 comments:
The Nature edtorial only skims the surface of the criticisms. For instance, the MacIntyre and McKitrick paper, and the Soon and Baliunas paper were discussed in more than one of the e-mails, and attempts were discussed to block or punish their publication. Whether these attempts were actually made or successful or not, they do demonsrate a willingness to attempt manipulating the peer-review process to stifle dissenting opinion.
There are multiple references to attempts to avoid releasing data to hostile critics, because they would seize on them to attempt to discredit not only the CRU, but all climate science. This has indeed happened, but it should not be ignored that many of these scientists had become activists in promoting political measures to offset the predicted global warming.
The deeper problem, which has also been faced in the social sciences, is that when scientists become activists, they tend be opposed by both those who are skeptical on scientific ground and political opponents who care little about the science. Both their ability to honestly criticize their own work and their ability to honestly potentially valid criticisms made by others is compromised.
What the Editorial also fails to notice is that the CRU is part of a public academic institution. Both as a matter of good science, and in the general public interes, it should not be necessary to generate FOIA requests to compel it to release information regarding scientific data and methods.
Thanks for bringing this out. It is important for people to know that the case for climate change is not based on the questioned data. Nor do the two papers referenced in the emails change the overwhelming evidence for climate change.
Here is a statement put out today by some US scientists:
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/scientists-statement-on.pdf
Post a Comment