The Washington Times Weekly - - Politics -

“It is not enough for cli­mate sci­en­tists and en­vi­ron­ment min­is­ters to go to Copen­hagen and tell each other how right they are. They also need to con­vince the pub­lic. Na­tional pol­i­tics — the demo­cratic process — is aw­fully in­con­ve­nient some­times, but can­not be waved away,” Clive Crook writes in the Fi­nan­cial Times.

“The cli­mate-sci­ence es­tab­lish­ment — sci­en­tists sub­scrib­ing to the global-warm­ing con­sen­sus and most gov­ern­ments, judg­ing by words, not deeds — un­der­stands this. This is why the Copen­hagen meet­ing has a the­atri­cal as­pect; it is as much about pub­lic re­la­tions as about se­ri­ous ef­forts to con­front global warm­ing,” Mr. Crook said.

“The ex­perts are in­tent on stir­ring up — they would say ‘ed­u­cat­ing’ — pub­lic opin­ion. From their own point of view, how­ever, they are mak­ing a hash of it. ...

“Con­sider the re­sponse to Cli­mate­gate — the scan­dal over emails from the Cli­matic Re­search Unit at the Uni­ver­sity of East Anglia. The e-mails showed some of the world’s lead­ing cli­mate sci­en­tists talk­ing about a sta­tis­ti­cal ‘trick’ to ‘hide the de­cline’ in a proxy mea­sure of tem­per­a­ture, mus­ing over how to keep dis­senters out of the lit­er­a­ture, dis­cussing the dele­tion of data that might be sub­ject to Free­dom of In­for­ma­tion Act re­quests, and more.

“Any fair-minded per­son would re­gard those ex­changes as rais­ing ques­tions. On the face of it, th­ese are not the stan­dards one ex­pects of sci­ence. Nor is this just any sci­ence. The work of th­ese re­searchers is be­ing used to press the case for eco­nomic poli­cies with colos­sal ad­just­ment costs. Plainly, the high­est stan­dards of in­tel­lec­tual hon­esty and open­ness are called for. The e-mails do not at­test to such stan­dards.

“Yet how did the es­tab­lish­ment re­spond? It said that this is how

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.