Climate science: Credibility at risk, scientists say

Science News ^ | Feb. 20, 2010 | Janet Raloff

[neverdem]

SAN DIEGO (Feb. 20) Publication of hacked emails exchanged by climate scientists. News accounts of problems in vetting data used in climate-assessment reports. Charges by critics that scientists won’t release their raw data so that others might independently vet published analyses of climate trends. Taken together, these events have marred the reputations of climate scientists, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and perhaps science generally.

Or so concluded a distinguished panel of science luminaries, yesterday. They included Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences; James McCarthy, a Harvard climate scientist and chairman of the board of directors of the American Association for the Advancement of Science; Nobel Prize winner Phillip Sharp of MIT, who co-chaired the NAS report last year: “Ensuring the Integrity, Accessibility, and Stewardship of Research Data in the Digital Age;” and Astronomer Royal Martin Rees, President of Britain’s Royal Society.

They spoke as part of a “late-breaking” session at the AAAS annual meeting – one that was co-sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences. Its stated theme: ensuring the transparency and integrity of science. However, its organizers conceded that what prompted them to shoehorn the session into the meeting were a series of back-to-back climate controversies that played out daily in news accounts over the past several months.

The “Climate-gate emails” and concerns over Himalayan glacial-melt data in a 2007 IPCC report together served as “sort of a wake-up call,” McCarthy said. But a wake-up call that he and others initially all but ignored.

The climate-science community, of which he is a part (he was a co-chair of an IPCC working group) largely dismissed the news revelations as accounts of bumbling behavior by well-meaning if overworked scientists. It didn’t appear “that this would be a very big deal for anyone,” McCarthy explained, because none of...

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[SaraJohnson]

The BIG clue for any field of research is when the “scientists” act like radicals in spitting absolute hatred for anyone who questions their research or comes up with different results than they did.

Real scientists don’t do this. They do not mind the back and forth required for the advancement of science. Folks who have sold out science for a personal enrichment scheme, political or social cause do this hate and hysteria thing against questioning scientific “enemies.” Ethical, successful and professional scientists don’t act like this.

As soon as we heard the watermelons of “climate research” screeching “denier” like some religious cult or communist, we should have known the whole operation was bogus. Then you follow the money and power to find out why the “scientists” are faking it.

[hinckley buzzard]

There have been plenty of passionate disagreements in the history of science, and scientists have not always conducted themselves with decorum. What makes this fraud unique is that there has been a concerted effort by the AGW radicals to avoid the science, rather than to rely on it.

Ordinarily when there is controversy, one side is more than eager to have the other see and deal with their data. Here, the fraud perps seek to hide their "data" and prevent anyone from even having the opportunity to be swayed by it.

This is why we know beyond the shadow of a doubt that a world-scale unprecedented crime against humanity is being perpetrated by leftwing operatives.

[hoosiermama]

Neal Cavuto just said on his program that he has MS...So does Janice Dean, the Weather Machine.

Don’t we have some information on D3 that might help both of them.....
How do we contact them?