As my previous blog about the scepticism of global worming, the article "Why scientists must be the new climate sceptics " in New Scientist seems to be a follow up for that blog.
Jim Giles tells us about current situation in the controversy on global worming. The topic, despite a lot of effort from scientists in recent decades, seems to lose the reliability due to the disclosure of the emails in the archive of the Climate Research Unit of the University of East
Anglia, one of world renowed research centers of environment. The emails have been hacked from the archive of the institution; the sceptics claims that that emails "reveal extensive data manipulation and expose a conspiracy behind global warming research." However, according to the analysis of New Scientist, they find that there is just scant evidence of data manipulation. Moreover, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change also acknowledges that the report on the melting of glaciers in Himalaya is exaggerated. This two pieces of information gives good ground for the sceptics of global warming to argue that the whole matter is just a hoax. He also points out that some writer "presenting herself as a brave soul, fearlessly standing up to climate science orthodoxy" without showing any evidence to disprove the global warming.
This article shows us that how important the integrity in scientific report is. Once there exists a slight data manipulation in the report, it could lead to the lost of confidence of the whole set of theories. In this case, just only two dishonest reports could become the weakness that opponents use to discredit the whole theory which has been defended and supported by a lot of reliable and honest evidences for decades. Although this problem would not lead to the total distrust of global warming, it could bring negative effect to the effort to reduce air pollutions. Some group might make use of this fact to slow down the campaign in reducing the greenhouse gas or the use of fossil fuel. I think in future scientist should be more careful about their work and try to avoid such manipulated or exaggerated report. It could be harmful to both their own reputaion as well as their other study.
Jim Giles tells us about current situation in the controversy on global worming. The topic, despite a lot of effort from scientists in recent decades, seems to lose the reliability due to the disclosure of the emails in the archive of the Climate Research Unit of the University of East
Anglia, one of world renowed research centers of environment. The emails have been hacked from the archive of the institution; the sceptics claims that that emails "reveal extensive data manipulation and expose a conspiracy behind global warming research." However, according to the analysis of New Scientist, they find that there is just scant evidence of data manipulation. Moreover, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change also acknowledges that the report on the melting of glaciers in Himalaya is exaggerated. This two pieces of information gives good ground for the sceptics of global warming to argue that the whole matter is just a hoax. He also points out that some writer "presenting herself as a brave soul, fearlessly standing up to climate science orthodoxy" without showing any evidence to disprove the global warming.
This article shows us that how important the integrity in scientific report is. Once there exists a slight data manipulation in the report, it could lead to the lost of confidence of the whole set of theories. In this case, just only two dishonest reports could become the weakness that opponents use to discredit the whole theory which has been defended and supported by a lot of reliable and honest evidences for decades. Although this problem would not lead to the total distrust of global warming, it could bring negative effect to the effort to reduce air pollutions. Some group might make use of this fact to slow down the campaign in reducing the greenhouse gas or the use of fossil fuel. I think in future scientist should be more careful about their work and try to avoid such manipulated or exaggerated report. It could be harmful to both their own reputaion as well as their other study.
__________
References
Giles, J. (2010, March 4) Why scientists must be the new climate sceptics. New Scientist. Retrieved March 5, 2010 from http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18609-why-scientists-must-be-the-new-climate-sceptics.html
Pearce, F. (2009, November 24) Hacked archive provides fodder for climate sceptics. New Scientist. Retrieved March 5, 2010 from http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18192-hacked-archive-provides-fodder-for-climate-sceptics.html
Pearce, F. (2009, November 24) Hacked archive provides fodder for climate sceptics. New Scientist. Retrieved March 5, 2010 from http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18192-hacked-archive-provides-fodder-for-climate-sceptics.html
I've heard some people being so skeptic about the whole global warming things. They say that it's just an attempt to rest funds of some scientists. I also heared people attack back that the skeptics are those who lose benefit because of the stop global warming campaign.
ReplyDeleteBut I also heard of scientists who made up information, too. Actually, one of my best friends is studying in faculty of science and she told me that seniors are making up the results for their senior projects, just to get it over with! So, P'Liu post is totally old news for me. They start doing that in university, at the very beginnig of their careers, so what should I be expecting?
But that's just my point of view since I'm not in the field and know a little too little about science.
I think Roong's comments reflect poorly on the quality of a university where such behaviour would be possible, let alone as accepted as it appears to be. It will not help graduates of that university gain respect. Nor can it benefit the reputation of teh university generally. I would be complaining if it were my university allowing its standards and reputation to be so lowered.
ReplyDeleteI have a couple of other comments, some of which I've already made on Liu's later post about carbon taxes, with which I disagree more strongly than he does. I have to leave now, so will try to come back and post another comment later.