Here it the fast breaking news as I understand it... Someone hacked into a climate change research center and stole 1000 emails and more than 2000 other documents. and posted them on a Russian file-sharing site. The interesting part is that they seem on the few that I have read to indicate that there is significant evidence that the peer review process has been interfered with. Additionally, it appears that scientists suffer from the same stress as teenagers when not in the in crowd. So, you say, who cares?? The truth is that peer review is a critically important part of the sharing of scientific information.
Peer review? The basics are that in science before you can publish, your colleagues get the chance to look at your work. In academia,it is publish or perish so the scientists are heavily motivated to be able to publish. If it is hard to publish articles that are in conflict with the idea that man causes global warming, then, the literature and the world of science can not work properly. Science is not a consensus business so the peer review process is supposed to reflect quality of work, not to be a all in or out business.
So, the release of these stolen emails is very interesting. Excerpts were printed in the Wall Street Journal and on numerous websites. Of course it is important not to over interpret these out of context emails. And of course, it was bad that they are stolen... So, do we discount the facts because of the way they were gathered?
Some in the news business have been reluctant to run this story because of the way the information was obtained. As with all correspondence, these emails are hard to evaluate out of context.
It would be tragic if a breakdown in scientific ethics slows the research on this critical issue. Personally, I have thought for some time that global warming was not the correct banner under which to consider what impact man has on the earth, and in what ways we can best be stewards of the beautiful amazing earth.
For today, I can marvel at how what you say in secret, you should be ready to say in public.
Love the internet.... it keeps us all a bit more honest.
I read the article, and one part of it stuck out to me. They published an email from Ben Santer from October 9th 2009 that says
ReplyDelete" I'm really sorry that you have to go through all this stuff, Phil. Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I'll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted"
Pat Michaels, who works for the Cato Institute, has been a published author supporting the opposition to the view that humans cause climate change. I'm not saying I support either way, I'm not sure myself which is solidly correct. However, it disappoints me that scientists are unwilling to listen to dissent, and instead of focusing on promoting scientific knowledge, their goal is politics, and personal gain.
Yes, Science by definition, is supposed to be as unbiased as is possible.Scientists ought not to pick and choose only the data that supports their 'pet' view, as is often the case,sadly.
ReplyDeleteWhy are the scientists arguing about whether humans are causing "climate change"? Why don't they just observe the weather and notice that we had a abnormally cool and wet summer ?
ReplyDelete