Article here.
If I can call on my education here to address a few pet peeves of mine in the sciences:
As much as you'd like to think it would be free from politics, science is NEVER free from politics. Everything in science is political, from methodologies, to definitions to the culture and the interpretation of the science. Science is NEVER as "straight forward" as a non-scientist media consumer would probably like it to be.
A couple thoughts on the article though: First, I don't know how those scientists got cleared of wrongdoing in the climategate emails. One thing I have learned in the sciences is that there is always some variable that I hadn't considered, some angle, some THING that needs to be taken into account. So there is quite possibly some technicality as to why they were found not guilty that is perhaps legit.
HOWEVER, they shouldn't have gotten involved in this stuff in the first place. You can be acquitted and the situation still stinks - especially in the sciences where integrity is PARAMOUNT. Scientists are human though, humans first scientists second, and even the psychologist or medical doctor makes a crack about some deformity or whack job in their business, it's what keeps people sane. They do say things inappropriate in their business and even exchange emails that shouldn't be written. BUT, that's the charge and responsibility that comes with your position as a Ph.D. or scientist. You have to hold yourself to a higher standard, especially when it comes to your work and in your personal life to maintain your integrity.
Every scientist knows their integrity is on the line the entire time they do their work! I was quite shocked in my research at how brutal the attacks on your work or reputation in the scientific field can be. Everything comes under scrutiny: your methodology, your political views, your religious views, your education, your associates, your personal life, your relationships, your funding and you have to be able to defend every single one of them in order to have the credibility to influence the world with your work to advance your premises. It's absolutely unforgiving! You're dealing with some of the top intellectuals in the world when you step into this realm, and rather than becoming free from politics, it is wrapped more into it than never before and the scrutiny is very very intense.
All this in mind, cleared or not, I find what the scientists were engaged in unforgivable and absolutely stupid and amateurish and they SHOULD be tossed out on their ear. Whether they were found innocent or not. They know better. And this lack of judgment on their part to be so careless makes me question every single other thing they have ever done in their professional lives. They are not innocent.
People may question my questioning them, but here's the thing: As a PhD they know the impact of public opinion on their research, and myself, as John Q. Public, have every right to question their work because their work affects me. Follow the money. Who were they working for? What interest did they have in coming up with the conclusions they did? Innocent or not I'm sorry they fail in my book.
But this is the thing that the public NEEDS to be aware of: Science is not required to be a consensus to be valid. Consensus is only one part of science and it isn't required at all times and anyone who paints it as being so is dishonest or ignorant and leading you on. It may be a strong part of their beliefs and methodology (as mentioned above, different scientists have different beliefs and methodology) but it would be proper for them to a acknowledge that there is room for disagreement and I haven't seen that in this debate. Disagreement is a vital and fundamental part of science. Without disagreement, the science does not progress. The public has been played in this global warming debate by both the media and the scientists themselves in portraying one side as being "on track" and the other as "skeptics" and therefore "irresponsible."
This in mind, the calls for action and assertions that a lack of action is irresponsible by the scientists in this article could be considered a valid call but scientifically could also equally and validly be called irresponsible since the stakes are apparently so high. When you start calling for action on sketchy evidence when the science has been tainted, it stops being science and becomes community activism or purely politics without the science. When someone starts waving around their Ph.D. to be sufficient grounds as for them to be listened to, they've lost credibility. A Ph.D. is not an Obama - i.e. LOOK AT ME! LISTEN TO ME! I'M SO SMART YOU'D BE AN IDIOT NOT TO LISTEN! No, a scientist is able to make the case for his point of view and does so through a methodology and evidence and allows room for disagreement. I haven't seen a whole lot of that in this global warming debate. I've seen scientists pandering to the media and the cameras in a bid for funding and intelligent talk boiled down to tabloid soundbites coming out of their mouths to play the crowd.
I wish I had time to write on this further but I think I will post this, incomplete as it is and maybe write on it some more later.
