The unauthorized release of emails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia initiated extensive public scrutiny on climate research.
The subsequent defenses of the science and scientists, the slow response of most of the institutions, discovery of errors in the IPCC reports, and broader concerns of bias and conflict of interest in the IPCC have damaged the reputation of the IPCC and climate science as a whole.
I’m hosting this thread so that participants can air their ideas and discuss their differences of opinion on this. In the coming months, I am planning several threads that relate to this topic, including reflections on the IPCC, responsible conduct of research, and open knowledge initiatives. At this point, I don’t have anything in particular to say about this topic, but here are links to my previous essays on the subject:
- On the credibility of climate research
- Open letter to graduate students
- Can scientists rebuild the public trust in climate science?
Appropriate topics to discuss on this thread include:
- The IAC report on the IPCC
- Andrew Montford’s assessment of the inquiries
- Ross McKitrick’s assessment of the inquiries
- Media coverage
- Communicating climate science
- Role of the blogosphere
- The reaction of the climate establishment
- Suggestions on how to restore credibility to climate science
Inappropriate topics to discuss are:
- Citations from the emails
- Attacks or criticisms of individuals mentioned in the emails (particularly Jones, Mann); criticize a type of behavior but not an individual.