For the past week there's been much wailing and gnashing of teeth about the private e-mails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit. Some have
I do want to point out fhat if you're skeptical, if you think the IPCC is wrong, and if you think the authors of the Copenhagen Diagnosis are wrong, you now have a chance to show them.2 The folks at RealClimate have put together a list of publicly available data sources and analytical code. If you really think you can do better, all you need to do is to download the data, run an analysis showing the IPCC its mistakes and get it published in a good peer-reviewed scientific journal. If you can really show that a major conclusion of the IPCC is wrong, I guarantee you that it will attract enormous interest and attention, and you'll get your paper published in Nature or Science. Even if you only show that a small conclusion is wrong, you can probably get your results published in a first-rate climatological journal.
Of course, there is the little matter of peer review. You won't have to convince reviewers and editors that you're right. But you will have to convince two or three experts in the field and an editor that your methods and conclusions are at least plausible enough that they deserve to be published. If you can't do that, I'm sorry. I'm not going to listen to you.3
read through the corpus of email and found that the scientists working on climate change often have substantive disagreements with one another, which they debate vigorously in email, and cited this as evidence of a conspiracy to cover up dissent and present a scientific consensus on climate change. (source)I won't say more about that, except to say that scientists are human, and it's not surprising that climate scientists who were viciously attacked may have become a little defensive.1 I will point out that Michael Mann, a prominent paleoclimatologist and one of those whose included in the e-mails that were released, provides his perspective on the controversy at desmogblog.
I do want to point out fhat if you're skeptical, if you think the IPCC is wrong, and if you think the authors of the Copenhagen Diagnosis are wrong, you now have a chance to show them.2 The folks at RealClimate have put together a list of publicly available data sources and analytical code. If you really think you can do better, all you need to do is to download the data, run an analysis showing the IPCC its mistakes and get it published in a good peer-reviewed scientific journal. If you can really show that a major conclusion of the IPCC is wrong, I guarantee you that it will attract enormous interest and attention, and you'll get your paper published in Nature or Science. Even if you only show that a small conclusion is wrong, you can probably get your results published in a first-rate climatological journal.
Of course, there is the little matter of peer review. You won't have to convince reviewers and editors that you're right. But you will have to convince two or three experts in the field and an editor that your methods and conclusions are at least plausible enough that they deserve to be published. If you can't do that, I'm sorry. I'm not going to listen to you.3
1Judith Curry gets it right in a guest post on Climate Progress:
A better understanding of the enormous policy implications of our field should imbue in all of us a greater responsibility for upholding the highest standards of research ethics. Hone your communications skills; we all need to communicate more effectively. Publish your data as supplementary material or post on a public website. And keep your mind open and sharpen your critical thinking skills. My very best wishes to you in your studies, research, and professional development. I look forward to engaging with you in a dialogue on this topic.
2I should point out here that when I say that you have a chance to show them that they're wrong, I mean that you have a chance to show them that their science is wrong. For example, you have a chance to show that humans aren't contributing to climate change or that the earth isn't warming. I'm not talking about policy responses. There can be legitimate differences about how we should respond to the changes climatologists have documented, but I think you'll find it very difficult to show that the IPCC has its scientific assessment wrong.
3If you want a fuller explanation of why, read this post.
Leave a comment