Links
Scientists at every level conduct their work and careers under close scrutiny in an environment that is known as peer review. For a scientific discovery or proposition to be accepted, the work generally follows a particular process. First, a paper describing the discovery is written and submitted to an authoritative publication. The world’s best known general science publications are “Nature” in the UK and “Science” in the US. Papers submitted to these and even smaller, more specific, journals are then sent by the editors to a review panel of eminent scientists who specialise in the field discussed in the paper. If the consensus is that the paper has value, it is published. Scientists with a particular interest in the subject covered by the article then set out to duplicate the experiments described in the article to ensure they achieve identical results. If the results cannot be duplicated, warnings are sounded and the scientist in question is investigated. There are examples through history of scientific fraud. Peer review generally exposes it. Equally, scientists make mistakes and peer review generally picks them up and they are corrected. There are many examples of a paper being rewritten to correct errors found by the peer review. If only we could resubmit school exams to correct errors!
As a result of this rigour, we generally accept the veracity of science. Scientific discovery and invention fuel our economies and our lives.
So the discussion on climate change should not be about belief but whether the science is valid. Are the measurements correct as reported? Are the conclusions from those measurements valid? Are the projections reasonable?
The discussion should never descend to personal attack or a smear on any profession. It should concentrate on the information, validation and interpretation.
When I read of prominent people attacking scientists rather than their science, I am worried.
For example, Australia’s Federal Opposition leader, Tony Abbott, was reported in July 2011 making the following remarks: "It may well be, as you say, that most Australian economists think that the carbon tax or emissions trading scheme is the way to go. Maybe that’s a comment on the quality of our economists.’’
From the other side, former UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown has lashed out: “We mustn't be distracted by the behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics.”
Quite why either side needs to resort to name-calling or general put-down is beyond me. Surely we simply discuss the science as it is brought forward.
Comments
Comments are not available for this entry.