Climate change researchers must be more open, says chief scientist.

The New York Times , Thursday, February 04, 2010
Correspondent : Alok Jha and Fred Pearce
The government's chief scientist has called on climate researchers to be more open when dealing with critics and transparent when they make errors.

In an interview with the Guardian, John Beddington urged scientists to share data freely even though some sceptics sought to cherry-pick facts to fit a ­political ­argument. He said: "Scepticism and criticism is the way science grows. Where at all possible, data and analyses should be available so that people can do the challenging in an unhindered way."

He said that as climate science became a more politically charged issue demand for public scrutiny would grow. "In general, there's got to be a predilection for being as open as possible."

Beddington was speaking as the third part of a Guardian investigation of emails stolen from the University of East Anglia in November revealed the extraordinary lengths scientists went to in order to frustrate Freedom of Information Act requests for data and email correspondence. The hacked emails reveal the intense and prolonged pressure the scientists were under from a small but determined group of climate sceptics and their extreme resistance to sharing information.

• In December 2008, Dr Phil Jones, the head of the Climatic Research Unit wrote to colleagues about Steve McIntyre, a blogger who had made repeated requests: "I am supposed to go through my emails and he can get anything I've written about him. About two months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little – if anything at all." Jones says this was a routine deletion and not connected to any FoI request.

• In another email CRU deputy director Dr Keith Briffa expressed resistance to revealing emails. "Our private inter-collegial discussion is just that – PRIVATE ... none of us should submit to these requests."

• Back in February 2005, before the UK's FoI Act came into force, Jones foresaw the danger it posed to scientists. "[Climate sceptics] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone."

Last week the Information Commissioner's Office released a statement condemning the university for its handling of FoI requests from the climate sceptic David Holland. The UN's climate change body and its chief, Rajendra Pachauri, meanwhile remained under pressuretonight after a defiant interview in the Guardian in which he refused to resign or personally apologise for a false statement about Himalayan glaciers in the IPCC's 2007 report.

Though a number of senior scientific figures, including Beddington, said they did not believe Pachauri should resign, several urged the IPCC to address unanswered questions and set out measures to avoid repeating damaging mistakes.

Bob Watson, who preceded Pachauri as IPCC chair, said it remained unclear how the Himalayan glacier claim, that all could melt by 2035, was published. "Was it missed by all experts and all governments? Or did someone spot it and comment on it and then it was ignored by the authors?" he told the Guardian. "And, if so, why didn't someone react to it? All of this is meant to be heavily documented."

One of Pachauri's closest associates said today that a way of dealing with mistakes was needed. "Something we need and do not have is a process that lets us move aggressively in admitting an error has occurred," said Chris Field, co-chair of Working Group II, which oversaw the 2007 report containing the glacier claim – though Field assumed the post after 2007.

Beddington said: "Mistakes have been made so there is a need to think about the procedures. As set out, they're probably OK but one needs to be thinking and posing to the IPCC in the future, how are you going to avoid these sorts of mistakes?" He stressed that while "large proportions" of climate science were unchallengeable, other areas were uncertain and scientists should acknowledge that.

Campaigners were split on what needed to be done to restore the IPCC's credibility. "The person at the top ... will make mistakes, everybody does," said John Sauven, head of Greenpeace. "Can Pachauri be trusted to be honest, open and transparent if a mistake is made? Does he have the confidence not only of the scientific community but the wider public?"

But another NGO, which requested anonymity, said the public perception of climate science was damaged: "Pachauri is the problem. He has to go. This has set everything back years."

 
SOURCE : http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/03/climate-change-chief-scientist-beddington
 


Back to pevious page



The NetworkAbout Us  |  Our Partners  |  Concepts   
Resources :  Databases  |  Publications  |  Media Guide  |  Suggested Links
Happenings :  News  |  Events  |  Opinion Polls  |  Case Studies
Contact :  Guest Book  |  FAQs |  Email Us