Science under the microscope Confidence in the scientific case for the dangers of climate change needs a serious boost after the battering it received over “email-gate”

Google.com , Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Correspondent : By Archana Venkatraman, Information World Review 08 Mar 2010

Here’s a tough question. Which professionals are more unpopular: bankers, politicians or scientists?

Climate science institutions and environmental info pros have had a bumpy ride recently. Quite rightly too, because a flurry of embarrassing information disasters have undermined the credibility and respectability of science itself. They have even (unhelpfully and mistakenly) turned some into climate-agnostics, rejectionists and sceptics.

A BBC survey suggests a rising number of Britons are sceptical about climate change. In November, 83% respondents said climate change was a reality, but this fell to 75% in February.

As the climate clock continues ticking, it is time for a reality check. Scientific researchers should rescue their efforts and revive public confidence through facts and free and fair debates. Experts warn that without action scepticism will flourish.

The Royal Society, Britain’s leading scientific academy, aims to set things straight first: “Our scientific understanding of climate change is that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming. Science moves forward by challenge and debate and this will continue.

“None of the current criticisms of climate science, nor the alternative explanations of global warming, are well enough founded to make not taking action an option.”

In the last five months, acidic labels such as “toxic quality”, climategate”, “scandal” “information manipulators” and “glaciergate” have questioned the very foundation of climate science.

The problems started in November 2009 when hacked emails of the past 10 years from the University of East Anglia (UEA) were published on the web. Emails reportedly from UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), including personal exchanges, appeared. At the time a university spokesman confirmed the system had been hacked and that information was published without permission. The police began criminal investigations.

Following freedom of information requests the CRU said it no longer had the raw data on which it had based its global warming predictions. The UEA says it takes “very seriously” its responsibilities under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Environmental Information Regulations 2004, and the Data Protection Act 1998 “and has, in all cases, handled and responded to requests in accordance with its obligations under each particular piece of legislation. Where appropriate, we have consulted with the Information Commissioner’s Office and followed their advice.”

The leaked e-mail exchanges prompted claims of data being manipulated and suggestions the CRU wanted certain papers excluded from the UN’s next major assessment of climate science. Unit head Professor Phil Jones has denied this was the intention and has stood down from his post while an independent inquiry takes place. In an interview with the BBC he rebutted some of the central allegations (http://tinyurl.com/yz3rhtm).

The university has appointed Muir Russell, chairman of the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland, who has no previous links with the climate science community, to investigate allegations of data manipulation. He will also review CRU’s compliance with the Freedom of Information Act and the Environmental Information Regulations for the release of data and make recommendations regarding appropriate information management of data the CRU holds.

The UEA has asked for the review to report by spring 2010 and this will be published along with UEA’s response.

The inquiry itself ran into trouble when Dr Philip Campbell, editor-in-chief of scientific journal Nature, had to step down from the inquiry panel, following reports that he defended the conduct of researchers at the CRU in a radio interview in China, saying they had done nothing wrong. Campbell has issued a statement saying his remarks were made in “good faith on the basis of media reports of the leaked e-mails... I support the need for a full review of the facts behind the leaked e-mails.”

In a separate move it was announced last month that the Royal Society will advise UEA on identifying assessors to conduct an independent external reappraisal of the CRU’s key publications.

Hard on the heels of the email saga came the revelation of problems in the way the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change) assesses and verifies its students’ research papers. One IPCC paper seemed to wrongly project that all Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 and another misjudged the Netherlands sea level.

So how do we ensure the scientific information industry stays respectable?

Getting started

Leaving the blame game aside, some experts believe good has come out of the leaked emails. Info pros are realising that corrections must be made, their institutions must check and re-check research papers and reports must be subjected to intense peer-review. There is also a call for more candid debates and discussions between the sceptics and climate scientists and free and transparent availability of opinion and information from both sides.

Russell’s inquiry will play a dominant role in determining faith in scientists. It will examine the email exchanges and any other information held at CRU to determine whether there is any evidence of manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice or call into question any of the research outcomes. It will review CRU’s policies and practices for acquiring, assembling, subjecting to peer review and disseminating data and research findings, and its compliance or otherwise with best scientific practice. The panel experts have listed concerns that need to be addressed if climate science is to get back on track.

According to Nature magazine: “Governments and institutions must provide tangible assistance for researchers facing burdens such as endless, time-consuming demands for information under the US and UK FOIA.”

Nature is also pressing for a standardisation of formats, without which it is hard to compare and integrate data from different sources. If meteorological services do not improve researchers’ ease of access, governments should force them to.

Contractual restrictions bar researchers from publicly releasing meteorological data in many countries. And Met services in Germany, France and the UK provide data sets only when researchers specifically request them, and even then only after a significant delay.

The e-mail saga highlights how difficult it is for climate researchers to follow the canons of scientific openness, which require them to make public the data on which they base their conclusions.

Fred Pearce, the Guardian’s science investigative journalist says: “FOI needs rethinking as regards its impact on science. Nobody seems to have thought about that when framing the law. But science needs to get its act together and routinely publish a lot more data. That would answer a lot of questions and cut out a lot of the FOI requests. Sadly, the emails reveal plenty of evidence that the scientists regarded the data as ‘theirs’. The rules of replication in science means data has to be shared.”

Making progress

The first principle in bringing confidence in climate change information is to share raw data and open it for public inspection. Secondly, as stakes are highest in climate science, its info pros must remain unbiased, disciplined and seek advice from seniors or authorities within their organisations. And finally research grants and funding agencies must be impartial in funding studies on both sides of the argument.

According to experts, researchers should strive to act and communicate professionally, and make their data and methods available to others.

Director of e-Strategy Richard Boulderstone, and Allan Sudlow, the British Library science team relationship manager, say the library aims to provide access to research-level information for scientists, information professionals, policy-makers, and anyone else interested in accessing peer-reviewed science journals and published reports from respected organisations, both in the UK and internationally.

“We provide a neutral route through which researchers can gain access to a broad range of material that they can use to validate theories, gather evidence and thus further their research. We do this without bias – in other words, we don’t select because we agree or disagree with the subject or conclusions.”

The library is also talking to researchers, funders and policy makers across the environmental sciences to understand where it can help. It is working with the UK Environment Research Funders’ Forum and NERC to help co-ordination of access across the environmental information landscape. “We are developing our own propositions in this area, and are looking at information needs of beyond academia, to central and local government, industry, consultancy, NGOs and the charity sector.”

The Guardian, which is playing an active role in raising awareness of climate change, says truth is the only mantra of good science. It advises: “Partial peer-reviewing and over-zealous defence of one’s own research are – and always have been – found in all manner of science departments. With climate, though, the stakes are higher –so standards must be too.”

In addition, the IPCC must be much more transparent. It must use latest technology to assess and verify information. It must promote information openness and more proactively encourage researchers to use its open online archive. Some experts also say the IPCC should use a 21st century Wikipedia-style rolling publishing model updated frequently.

Lastly, scientists and researchers must use all they can – local knowledge, previous reports, specialised expertise and freedom of information tools, collaboration, internet and information technology – to their advantage.

Restoring faith in climate science data is just the first step towards saving the planet.

 
SOURCE :
 


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