Recently, a U.N. scientific report was found to have included a false conclusion about the melting of Himalayan glaciers. That followed the release of stolen e-mails last year, which showed climate scientists commiserating over problems with their data. Is there a broader meaning in these two incidents, and should they cause the public to be more skeptical about the underlying science of climate change?
Washington Post Editor on January 28, 2010 9:00 AM
You can't call them isolated incidents now that they are coming in droves. It is clear that global warming science has been hijacked by a subset of researchers who have crossed the line into advocacy and alarmism.
Posted by Ben Lieberman, on January 29, 2010 12:11 PM
There is little doubt that the current public perception of climate change science is one of disarray and uncertainty. What appeared solid as recently as mid-2009 has been hit hard from all sides by a series of events.
Imagine Darwin's correspondence on the Internet. And imagine the reaction of talk radio hosts. Replace the interests of the more backward international corporations with the reaction of fundamentalist religion. Does it begin to look familiar?
Posted by David F. Hales, on January 26, 2010 9:44 PM
The broader meaning is that any enterprise involving thousands of individuals will include people of various qualities and attributes. There will be some who are kind-hearted and wholly transparent, and others who are spiteful and secretive.
Posted by Bernard Finel, on January 25, 2010 3:27 PM