| 查看: 896 | 回复: 1 | |||
pkxuxiake木虫 (正式写手)
古气候小虫
|
[交流]
【转帖】nature geoscience 气候门评论——出来混迟早要还的 已有1人参与
|
|
忽悠者，遇被惩罚之时，活该哉，罪有应得兮！ Editorial Nature Geoscience 3, 509 (2010) doi:10.1038/ngeo937 Climategate closed Abstract Climate science at the University of East Anglia is sound but lacking in transparency, according to the three official reports. But making data accessible will not be sufficient to guard against future attacks. Introduction The case of the alleged misbehaviour of climate researchers at the University of East Anglia is now closed. The last of the three reports on the science and conduct of the researchers was published on 7 July. Taken together, the independent investigations come to the conclusion that the scientific results produced at the University of East Anglia are sound, but that there are deficiencies in the transparency of climate research, at this university and elsewhere. In response to the reports, the data used in climate change studies should be made publicly available (Nature Geosci. 3, 218; 2010). But the critics are already crying “whitewash”. More openness alone is unlikely to resolve tensions between scientists, the media and politicians, or between sceptics and alarmists. Two Commentaries in this issue of Nature Geoscience, one by a climate scientist (page 511) and one by a social anthropologist (page 513) focus on the lessons learnt from last winter's media frenzy. They argue that climate scientists must engage in and inform discussions with the people who will feel the impact of climate change, to root their efforts in the global (and not just the scientific) community. Yet, at the same time, scientists need to be humble. Climate change projections are just one factor in any policy decision on adaptation or mitigation — and indeed, the only factor that climate researchers can expertly comment on. The hacked e-mails reveal that such modesty seems to have been lacking at times (http://go.nature.com/k6Guis). For example, in an exchange in late July 1999, climate scientists discussed how to present projected climate change scenarios to best serve the purposes of the WWF (who had apparently expressed concern that the initial presentations were more conservative than those from other sources and asked for one section to be 'beefed up' if possible). Such considerations should not enter into scientific debate. Furthermore, the e-mails are pervaded by a tendency to divide the world into friends and enemies. A curious contribution to the 'Letters' column in Science (Science doi: 10.1126/science.280.5372.2027e; 1998) — stating that “the reader might see more disagreement than actually exists” between the hockey-stick paper (Nature 392, 779–787; 1998) and its early criticism (Science 280, 544–545; 1998) — suggests that initial differences between scientists were quickly ironed out to present a united front. Yet a polarized view of an issue as complex as climate change can only be an oversimplification. Difficult as this may be, scientists have to maintain a disinterested perspective on the available information, be prepared to change their assessment when new facts come to light, and accept differences in opinion while taking counter-arguments seriously. Along with greater openness, a much more nuanced and multifaceted discussion of the physical aspects of climate change needs to be presented to the public to avoid future accusations of cliquiness and gatekeeping. |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
祈福，祝自己今年好运
已经有100人回复
-
关于会评
已经有1人回复
-
地质学论文润色/翻译怎么收费?
已经有234人回复
-
据说！出现这些情况，国基金会评本子会被拿下！
已经有19人回复
-
无人打捞，直接陪跑
已经有16人回复
-
定了定了，明天出结果！2025 国自然基金结果即将揭晓，查询攻略看这里
已经有107人回复
-
2025国家自然科学基金放榜时间，根据官方回应，8月15日基本没戏了
已经有5人回复
-
各位未来院士帮忙看看评审意见
已经有9人回复
-
《风吹过日常的缝隙》
已经有0人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- 每周一听——那些年我们一起练过的听力（第六期）
已经有62人回复
- 数学前沿(1950年——现在)
已经有202人回复
- 安东尼成功学——潜能成功学【转载】
已经有41人回复
- 《Nature》网站推荐南京大学张辰宇教授重大发现——第七种营养成分
已经有31人回复
- 热力学第二定律的疑问——自发过程的判断？
已经有7人回复
- 【交流】厦门大学第一篇 Nature
已经有15人回复
- 【讨论】大牛Peter Clark主动从Nature Geoscience撤稿
已经有12人回复
- Blue Pard MGC-300H智能型人工气候箱
已经有3人回复
- 洋快餐纷纷打出“健康牌”，可油炸食品仍是主打——
已经有4人回复
2楼2010-08-01 17:46:03
