The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. – Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961
|
‘It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent. Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility. Overall, our committee believes that Dr. Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.’ – Wegman Report, 2006
|
2009: Penn State to investigate Michael Mann;
In recent days a lengthy file of emails has been made public. Some of the questions raised through those emails may have been addressed already by the NAS investigation but others may not have been considered. The University is looking into this matter further, following a well defined policy used in such cases. No public discussion of the matter will occur while the University is reviewing the concerns that have been raised.
An unhappy colleague. Mike Hulme of UEA (location of CRU)
But this episode might signify something more in the unfolding story of climate change. This event might signal a crack that allows for processes of re-structuring scientific knowledge about climate change. It is possible that some areas of climate science has become sclerotic. It is possible that climate science has become too partisan, too centralized. The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science.
It is also possible that the institutional innovation that has been the I.P.C.C. has run its course. Yes, there will be an AR5 but for what purpose? The I.P.C.C. itself, through its structural tendency to politicize climate change science, has perhaps helped to foster a more authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production – just at a time when a globalizing and wired cosmopolitan culture is demanding of science something much more open and inclusive.
A contributing author to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, Eduardo Zorita, Department of Paleoclimate, GKSS Research Center (Germany)
“Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process”
Frank J. Tipler, professor of mathematical physics at Tulane University
The now non-secret data prove what many of us had only strongly suspected — that most of the evidence of global warming was simply made up. That is, not only are the global warming computer models unreliable, the experimental data upon which these models are built are also unreliable. As Lord Monckton has emphasized here at Pajamas Media, this deliberate destruction of data and the making up of data out of whole cloth is the real crime — the real story of Climategate.
It is an act of treason against science. It is also an act of treason against humanity, since it has been used to justify an attempt to destroy the world economy.
Dr. John Lewis, Dep’t of Physics & Physical Oceanography, Memorial University (by email);
It is worth noting, in regard to the deletion of raw data by the CRU that real scientific organizations are rather fierce about raw data. NASA, for instance, gives the Principal Investigator (and group) sole access to data for one year, and one year only. After that, the data are placed in the public domain. I do know that some PIs have asked for longer embargos – whether they got them or not I don’t know, but if so, not easily. If the PI simply deleted data it would be the end of his or her career.
NASA’s view is that data collected with public monies should be available to the public; and without copyright – US gov’t materials generally are not copyrighted. All of this is to a good end – the PIs get the obvious results, but some data – e.g. for the IRAS mission – have continued to yield information upon reanalysis even 15 years after the IRAS shut down.
Not every installation is set up to handle terabytes of data, but CRU was very well funded apparently, and anyway, if they couldn’t handle it they shouldn’t have collected or received it.
The CRU leaks will confirm the views of every half-baked political scientist in the world, that science does not deal in fundamental truths but is, rather, a politically negotiated discourse. It is very disturbing.
Dear Judy,
I am a young climate researcher (just received my master’s degree from xxx University) and have been very troubled by the emails that were released from CRU. I just want to applaud and support your response on climateaudit.org [95% of it 🙂 ]. Your statement represents exactly how I have felt as I slowly enter this community. The content of some of the emails literally made me stop and wonder if I should continue with my PhD applications for fall 2010, in this science. I was so troubled by how our fellow scientists within the climate community have been dealing with opposing voices (on both sides). I hope we can all learn from this and truly feel that we are going to need voices like yours to fix these problems in the coming months and years.
Dr. Judith Curry is Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
Audio: An Australian reporter hears something he may not have anticipated – scathing criticism from Aynsley Kellow, Professor and Head of the School of Government at the University of Tasmania. Expert reviewer for the United Nation’s IPPC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change and Key Vulnerabilities. (Or go directly to the mp3 here.)
