climategate
Not surprisingly, further analysis of the emails suggests that this has been largely overblown. I'm not saying the 'threat' of global warming is not exaggerated. I firmly believe that it is as do a number of climatologists. I'm also not saying that there might not be some elements of misconduct in this incident but it certainly isnt the smoking gun they wished for.
This response is a little lopsided (to the left) but it does bring up some excellent points that have been presented by members of different branches of the scientific community.
http://current.com/items/91655275_the-truth-about-climategate.htm
The biggest point to make is one I made early on that many climate science researchers DO NOT use data generated by these guys in their research and have come to similar conclusions through different data sets. Unfortunately, it seems that this particular research group was in fact rather stingy with their methods and data making transparency difficult. If the original data required to generate their results are unavailable they should be forced to retract their papers (since the loss of raw data is THEIR fault not an 'Act of God' beyond their control) and should have the remaining funding for their work removed (if they are indeed found guilty of falsifying data).
Drew
This response is a little lopsided (to the left) but it does bring up some excellent points that have been presented by members of different branches of the scientific community.
http://current.com/items/91655275_the-truth-about-climategate.htm
The biggest point to make is one I made early on that many climate science researchers DO NOT use data generated by these guys in their research and have come to similar conclusions through different data sets. Unfortunately, it seems that this particular research group was in fact rather stingy with their methods and data making transparency difficult. If the original data required to generate their results are unavailable they should be forced to retract their papers (since the loss of raw data is THEIR fault not an 'Act of God' beyond their control) and should have the remaining funding for their work removed (if they are indeed found guilty of falsifying data).
Drew