E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don’t support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.

The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don’t undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

The scientists were keenly aware of how their work would be viewed and used, and, just like politicians, went to great pains to shape their message. Sometimes, they sounded more like schoolyard taunts than scientific tenets.

The scientists were so convinced by their own science and so driven by a cause “that unless you’re with them, you’re against them,” said Mark Frankel, director of scientific freedom, responsibility and law at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He also reviewed the communications.

Frankel saw “no evidence of falsification or fabrication of data, although concerns could be raised about some instances of very ‘generous interpretations.’”

Some e-mails expressed doubts about the quality of individual temperature records or why models and data didn’t quite match. Part of this is the normal give-and-take of research, but skeptics challenged how reliable certain data was.

The e-mails were stolen from the computer network server of the climate research unit at the University of East Anglia in southeast England, an influential source of climate science, and were posted online last month. The university shut down the server and contacted the police.

The AP studied all the e-mails for context, with five reporters reading and rereading them — about 1 million words in total.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/12/climate-change-science-no_n_389783.html

Der Atmosphären-Forscher und Hurricane-Vorhersage Spezialist Bill Gray geht brutal mit seiner Zunft ins Gericht:
“There has been an unrelenting quarter century of one-sided indoctrination of the western world by the media and by various scientists and governments concerning a coming carbon dioxide (CO_2 ) induced global warming disaster. These warming scenarios have been orchestrated by a combination of environmentalists, vested interest scientists wanting larger federal grants and publicity, the media which profits from doomsday scenario reporting, governmental bureaucrats who want more power over our lives, and socialists who want to level-out global living standards. These many alarmist groups appear to have little concern over whether their global warming prognostications are accurate, however. And they most certainly are not.”
http://eppinger.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/puncturing-the-climate-balloon/

(Anm.: ich hatte bereits vergeblich versucht, diesen Kommentar zu posten, sollte er jetzt doppelt erscheinen, bitte ich um Nachsicht.)

Eine brutale Abrechnung mit seinen Kollegen kommt von Bill Gray, Atmosphären-Wissenschafter Spezielaist für Hurricane Vorhersagen:
“These warming scenarios have been orchestrated by a combination of environmentalists, vested interest scientists wanting larger federal grants and publicity, the media which profits from doomsday scenario reporting, governmental bureaucrats who want more power over our lives, and socialists who want to level-out global living standards. These many alarmist groups appear to have little concern over whether their global warming prognostications are accurate, however. And they most certainly are not.”
http://eppinger.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/puncturing-the-climate-balloon/

Gespannt

Konrad Fischer
Klimaketzer

Ob ein Heft nun in einer Arztpraxis ausliegt oder nicht, aendert den IF nicht. – Ansonsten hast Du aber recht, v.a. was Nature und Science angeht.

Aber das mit den Einkaufszetteln mag ich bezweifeln. Nur mal, um ein Gefühl für Impact-Faktoren zu bekommen: Nature und Science haben jeweils um die 30. Dann kommt eine ganze Weile gar nichts und dann z.B. PNAS mit 12, was ziemlich renommiert ist. Dann JACS, ein gutes Chemie-Journal mit ungefähr 7. Dann gibt’s viele um die 5, z.B. Biochemistry oder Proteins — die sind auch nicht schlecht für Biochemie.

Will sagen: Die Bedeutung von Impactfaktoren ist ziemlich relativ und auch abhängig von der Größe der “scientific community”. Theoretische Physiker können normalerweise schon froh sein wenn Sie in Journals mit 5 überhaupt reinkommen. Die meisten Mathe-Journals liegen bei < 1. Medizinische Journals, wie z.B. New England Journal of Medicine, liegen bei ~90 — weil es praktisch in jeder Praxis rumliegt.

Die meisten Forscher träumen nur davon, in Nature oder Science veröffentlichen zu können. Diese Journals suchen sich halt heiße, also auflagensteigernde Themen raus.

http://www.ing-buero-ebel.de/Treib/Auszug.htm