'Show Your Working': What 'ClimateGate' means

Hi peoples, I was looking at some news articles and I found that these opinions and perspectives are really important to look at, so I present a portion of it here and with the link to the full BBC article.

Enjoy.

'Show Your Working': What 'ClimateGate' means

VIEWPOINT
Mike Hulme and Jerome Ravetz

The "ClimateGate" affair - the publication of e-mails and documents hacked or leaked from one of the world's leading climate research institutions - is being intensely debated on the web. But what does it imply for climate science? Here, Mike Hulme and Jerome Ravetz say it shows that we need a more concerted effort to explain and engage the public in understanding the processes and practices of science and scientists.

Robot Practising scientists know that they do not simply follow a rulebook to do their science, otherwise it could be done by a robot As the repercussions of ClimateGate reverberate around the virtual community of global citizens, we believe it is both important and urgent to reflect on what this moment is telling us about the practice of science in the 21st Century. In particular, what is it telling us about the social status and perceived authority of scientific claims about climate change?

We argue that the evolving practice of science in the contemporary world must be different from the classic view of disinterested - almost robotic - humans establishing objective claims to universal truth. Climate change policies are claimed to be grounded in scientific knowledge about physical cause and effect and about reliable projections of the future.

As opposed to other ways of knowing the world around us - through intuition, inherited belief, myth - such scientific knowledge retains its authority by widespread trust in science's reassuring norms of objectivity, universality and disinterestedness. These perceived norms work to guarantee to the public trustworthy scientific knowledge, and allow such knowledge to claim high authority in political deliberation and argumentation; this, at least, is what historically has been argued in the case of climate change.

Link to full article:
news.bbc.co.uk...

P.S. I noticed this article possesses some spelling errors such as your for you're and there are a few others as well within the article. They are common mistakes and I hope people can look at what is said, rather than blast the authors for spelling corrections.

Thank you.




[edit on 6-12-2009 by GideonHM]

I have been posting several threads on the Global Warming debacle for the past week.

Stop on in and see what's happening, get your ticket for the show.

Down in my sig.

reply to post by endisnighe


Yep. I still struggle to believe it is all a pile of crap.

What we all have to remember is that one the people we are told are protecting us are protecting their conception of an ideal, and we are still poisoning our air, water, and Earth and no conspiracy is going to change this.

Think of this as well, the climatologists versus government resistance. A ploy to keep us distracted in case the other distractions start to fade. Well that is speculation, but if you create enough havoc and can still make money in the process of solidifying your social and structural control, you have a winner.

Everyone is lying and there is not much else left that can be done.

Be prepared.