When Climate Findings Get Scrutinized
Claims of scientific misconduct in climate research have made the rounds in recent reports. Such allegations don't by themselves invalidate the underlying conclusions, but they do reasonably raise questions about the involved organizations' output. In the American Physical Society's December and January newsletters, the discussion has been active—some calling for a retraction of the society's climate change statement, others arguing for revised language that reflects uncertainty.
Here's the reality: climate is deeply complex. Understanding the atmospheric and hydrological models that project our planet's future is a specialty far outside most of our expertise. At the same time, it's no secret that the topic is crowded with voices whose economic or personal stakes outweigh their technical understanding.
Given that, the most sound position is to defer to researchers who devote their careers to climate science, while staying attentive to how they work. From the limited reading available, the impression is that the bulk of climate researchers are engaged in sound science, earnestly tackling a difficult problem and working to communicate it clearly. That's why the analysis over at RealClimate, which examines the recent criticisms of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, merits a look—it separates the facts from the spin surrounding the alleged errors.
