Vargha Poralli
5th December 2006, 06:54
BBC wants Evidence (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6196804.stm)
Of all the accusations made by the diverse community of climate sceptics, the most damaging by far is that the institutions of science have become biased against research which questions the IPCC consensus, or which builds alternative explanations for the warming we have seen over the last century or so, and the other physical trends which go along with it.
Here, in the internet prairie, we find comments such as: "Science has become as blatantly biased in the direction of tragedy as television. But, given the way we fund and reward science and scientists, it was inevitable."
We find the IPCC criticised along the lines that it is "...an artfully constructed presentation of just the science that supports the fear of human-induced climate change. It is as one sided as a legal brief, which it resembles."
We find blanket condemnations such as: "We know that one's career and income are closely related to one's position on global warming."
I may be crazy to ask this given my already bulging inbox, but here goes. If you have evidence of research grants turned down because of a clash with the prevailing consensus, of instances where journals or conference organisers or consensus bodies have rejected "inconvenient" findings, please send it to us; my email address is at the bottom of this article.
(But please use send us your comments for general thoughts on this article, as usual.)
For our part - the Science and Nature team on this website - we undertake to deal with what you send in seriously.
For your part, I ask for two things. Firstly, focus on science, and leave to one side, for all the reasons given above, issues concerning possible bias in politics, the media or the wider spheres of society.
Secondly, be selective. "Evidence" does not mean links to blogs, websites, other news articles, or vague rambling condemnations of science and scientists; it means some sort of documentary proof. Fewer and better leads will make our initial sifting much more effective.
Of all the accusations made by the diverse community of climate sceptics, the most damaging by far is that the institutions of science have become biased against research which questions the IPCC consensus, or which builds alternative explanations for the warming we have seen over the last century or so, and the other physical trends which go along with it.
Here, in the internet prairie, we find comments such as: "Science has become as blatantly biased in the direction of tragedy as television. But, given the way we fund and reward science and scientists, it was inevitable."
We find the IPCC criticised along the lines that it is "...an artfully constructed presentation of just the science that supports the fear of human-induced climate change. It is as one sided as a legal brief, which it resembles."
We find blanket condemnations such as: "We know that one's career and income are closely related to one's position on global warming."
I may be crazy to ask this given my already bulging inbox, but here goes. If you have evidence of research grants turned down because of a clash with the prevailing consensus, of instances where journals or conference organisers or consensus bodies have rejected "inconvenient" findings, please send it to us; my email address is at the bottom of this article.
(But please use send us your comments for general thoughts on this article, as usual.)
For our part - the Science and Nature team on this website - we undertake to deal with what you send in seriously.
For your part, I ask for two things. Firstly, focus on science, and leave to one side, for all the reasons given above, issues concerning possible bias in politics, the media or the wider spheres of society.
Secondly, be selective. "Evidence" does not mean links to blogs, websites, other news articles, or vague rambling condemnations of science and scientists; it means some sort of documentary proof. Fewer and better leads will make our initial sifting much more effective.