Stolen e-mail messages among climate scientists obtained by computer hackers included mention of a “trick” used to present climate data in a Nature article, but the publication’s editors said today that they do not see enough evidence of wrongdoing to investigate the matter. “It is Nature’s policy to investigate such matters if there are substantive reasons for concern, but nothing we have seen so far in the e-mails qualifies,” said the editors in an editorial published today. They interpreted the word “trick” as a clever technique rather than an attempt to deceive.
RSS
Follow The Ticker through your favorite RSS reader.
6 Responses to ‘Nature’ Plans No Investigation Over Climate-Research Articles
bigfig - December 2, 2009 at 2:56 pm
There are so many more elements to this issue than the word “trick.” There were explicit emails among peer review leaders that discussed ways to marginalize certain researchers, not just their work, as well as the professional journals that present their work. Like it or not, the science here is not at all “settled,” but it certainly smells of politics dressed up to look like science.The public is simply tired of being gamed, manipulated, and sheparded around by just about every institution in society. Faith in science itself is now at risk, with the fear that “science” is now owned by social and economic activists.”Nature” is fooling itself, and certainly not fooling the public, if it does not understand the significance of this crisis. If they do not aggressively look for the truth in this cancerous scandal, wherever it may lead, “Nature” may end up becoming the next New York Times…an institution that has squandered its reputation and become simply an opinion journal. As they said back in the day, “It’s not the crime, it’s the coverup.” Never get caught up in that vortex of suspicion.
11232247 - December 2, 2009 at 4:29 pm
This was absolutely stunning news. Do the editors at “Nature” really believe that by ignoring the CRU (East Anglia University) hoax, it will simply go away? Who do they think they are, Brian Williams or Katie Couric?It is easy enough to understand why an army of journalism majors working at ABC/NBC/CBS/NYT/WP do not want to tackle this story. Frankly, I seriously doubt if most of them could even spot “fashionable pseudo-science nonsense” even if it were to hit them square in the face. Let’s be kind. Such an investigation by the media is probably well beyond their levels of academic training or understanding.Unfortunately, the research community does not enjoy the same luxury of blissful ignorance. Research and analysis of empirical data is our profession. It is what we do. From the CRU emails, we know that objective data have been manipulated and attempts to subvert our peer review processes have also occurred. For these two transgressions alone, people must be called to account for their actions. I will close by noting that nothing less than a full investigation will do or our own own credibility as the keepers of scientific standards will suffer. The CRU scientists fraudulent actions threaten us all.
11319762 - December 2, 2009 at 4:47 pm
“Nature” risks their own credibility and the credibility of the peer review system by their decision not to investigate the climate research articles. Who were “Nature’s” reviewers for the climate articles that they have published? What connection (if any) do these reviewers have to the e-mailers? Given that the e-mailers exchanged messages speaking of black-listing researchers whose research did not agree with their own from journals and removing other publications from their list of approved peer reviewed journals, it behooves “Nature” to demonstrate that it has not been a party to any of this activity. Their statement that they interpret the word “trick” to mean a stats technique/method and not deception is so patently insufficient that one can only assume that “Nature” has something to hide.This scandal has placed the whole system of peer review of scientific findings in jeopardy. Nobody will every trust published research again if this is not investigated to the fullest and if wrong-doing is found, that appropriate action be taken.
jwielmak - December 2, 2009 at 5:03 pm
I agree – “Nature” only loses credibility by taking such an ostrich-esque response to what is in essence an indictment of AGW science specifically, and the peer review process generally. I think this editorial also shows how AGW is more a political issue than a topic of rigorous science. Critics have long pointed out the religious nature of the AGW movement: its non-falsifiable dogma, its sacred texts, its “magic” artifacts (climate models), and even its televangelists (Al Gore).
climatologist - December 3, 2009 at 9:08 am
Yeah, It’s time to make Al Gore the head of the “Church of GlobalWarming”. I already see him as a savior!Folks, once again, the global warming “crisis” has nothing to do with thereal science. It is a political issue. Al Gore is preaching it becausehe has his own company and money accounts to worry about:http://www.kpcb.com/index.htmlHe is the main investor there and he admitted it in the congress himselfafter having no other choice.Global warming is nonsense, biggest scam and I suggest that believersget off of that bandwagon before it sinks.
dank48 - December 3, 2009 at 3:53 pm
So “Nature” joins “Scientific American” standing shoulder to shoulder for the current orthodoxy. It’s not much of an excuse that this is just a passive lack of response to a problem clearly in need of investigation. I suppose we should be grateful “Nature” didn’t embark on a hatchet job the way “SA” did on Bjorn Lomborg.The best thing Al Gore could do for the planet, imo, is stay the hell off jet planes, as he wants the rest of us to do, and shut off the constant blast of hot air, which is another source of carbon dioxide.