Nature Weighs in on Email Controversy

Thu, 2009-12-03 09:06Richard Littlemore
Richard Littlemore's picture

Nature Weighs in on Email Controversy

The journal Nature, unquestionably one of the most credible sources in science today, weighed in yesterday with an editorial on the hacked email controversy. It’s conclusion:

“In the end, what the UEA (University of East Anglia) e-mails really show is that scientists are human beings — and that unrelenting opposition to their work can goad them to the limits of tolerance, and tempt them to act in ways that undermine scientific values. Yet it is precisely in such circumstances that researchers should strive to act and communicate professionally, and make their data and methods available to others, lest they provide their worst critics with ammunition. After all, the pressures the UEA e-mailers experienced may be nothing compared with what will emerge as the United States debates a climate bill next year, and denialists use every means at their disposal to undermine trust in scientists and science.”

Previous Comments

http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/0,1518,665032,00.html

translated snippets from honourable German mainstream media:
…John Sensenberger is no ideological crackpot from the third row, but a leading representative of his party in terms of…[implying that others are crackpots]

…climate change deniers have attempted to sabotage efficient environmental protection with manipulations and deceptive arguments for years.

Comment: in the Germany quality press, obviously, the Moncktons, Lawsons, Inhofes etc. are tacitly dismissed as loonies. Why not here?

You Germans are just better in every way aren’t you.

No, not a tad better. Just less fundamendalist. And more responsible towards our environment, which comes from population density.

Now there is a magazine that is looking at a decrease in subscription if the Alarmist AGW rhetoric is proven false. Oh and freiherr what is the benchmark you use to state that germans are less “fundamentalist” than people elsewhere on the globe? History?

This is not a question of history but of now. Now, they are less fundamentalist, because there are only two mainstream religions, catholic and protestant - which are both moderate. Compare to N America: 40% of Republican party members are considered Christian fundamentalists.
Now look at politics: all major parties, left and right, are close to the centre - again moderate. Compare to the US: Democrats are right wing, and Republicans are ultra-right wing. Centre streams are considered communist, socialist etc.

Finally, look at the economic systems: All European democracies subscribe to a social market economy [check wikipedia], whereas the US is drifting between unfeathered and slightly feathered Manchester-style free-market economy, drafted by Adam Smith in the 1750s. Totally out of date as markets are more important than individuals. And the so-called market self-regulation failed bitterly last year [see market failure]. This style free market economy is endorsed by, surprise surprise, the Republican party and our well known right wing think tanks, the corner the denialism is coming from.

Back to journalism: I also find European journalism is by and large more investigative and informative, while here (too) much of journalism is based on opinion rather than facts. And as we know, every idiot can have an opinion.

I was not relating to fundamentalism worldwide, but to North American fundamentalism.

Nature is no mere ‘magazine’, it’s one of the world’s premier scientific journals.
It’s unsurprising that someone like you cannot grasp the difference, it’s like confusing lies with the truth - but of course you do that too!

Yeah It’s kind of like mad magazine, peer reviewed by aflred E neuman. This publication was riddled throughout the climategate e-mails, I believe the warmers hijacked it for their PR Game.