From The New York Times:
Hacked E-Mail Data Prompts Calls for Changes in Climate ResearchSome prominent climate scientists are calling for changes in the way research on global warming is conducted after a British university said thousands of private e-mail messages and documents had been stolen from its climate center.
Continue reading at The New York Times>>
* * * * * *
JOHN CRONIN: In his column in the Guardian, George Monbiot says of the climate change "deniers," "(their) campaign of lies, grotesque as it is, does not justify secrecy and suppression on the part of climate scientists. Far from it: it means that they must distinguish themselves from their opponents in every way."
This is correct thinking (Monbiot's error in grammatical agreement notwithstanding). I am reminded of a scandal that erupted in the PCB issue on the Hudson. GE scientists questioned the veracity of the research of a respected NYS Health Dept. scientist whose work supported the case for dredging. Immediately, environmentalists, union reps, and others came to the Health researcher's defense publicly. The essence of the environmental argument was that any critique coming from GE was automatically suspect to the point of complete invalidity.
Ultimately, an independent panel was appointed and the work of the Health Dept. scientist was repudiated. The body of worthwhile evidence in support of dredging survived nonetheless, but no thanks to the entire episode.
The hidden story here is that 99%o of us, environmentalists in particular, are at the mercy of the professional peer review and critique process that is supposed to produce good science. Many critical issues hang on the scientist/science to whom and which one subscribes. Sure we look at visualizations and information, articles and presentations, but the heart of the work -- the quality of raw data and the analytical tools employed to examine them -- is ultimately a matter of faith in the ability of the scientific process and the scientific community to sift the bad from the good.
I'm with Monbiot. This is an opportunity to demand loudly the absolute best of science, rather than hide from the reality that there is, inevitably, bad behavior, and perhaps bad work, on all sides of the issue.
The hidden story here is that 99%o of us, environmentalists in particular, are at the mercy of the professional peer review and critique process that is supposed to produce good science. Many critical issues hang on the scientist/science to whom and which one subscribes. Sure we look at visualizations and information, articles and presentations, but the heart of the work -- the quality of raw data and the analytical tools employed to examine them -- is ultimately a matter of faith in the ability of the scientific process and the scientific community to sift the bad from the good.
I'm with Monbiot. This is an opportunity to demand loudly the absolute best of science, rather than hide from the reality that there is, inevitably, bad behavior, and perhaps bad work, on all sides of the issue.
