Le climatologos del mundo comencia a defender se.

(Languages of this post: Interlingua, English)

Pro un periodo de menses il ha habite multe criticos del climatologos qui nos ha prevenite sur le problemas de calefaction global. Usque nunc, illes ha dimittite lor criticas como ignorantes con le quales il non esseva necesse ingagiar se.

Ma le quantitate de criticismo e le profunditate del dubito exprimite per le publico solmente se ha crescite, e multe scientistas ha concludite que illes sta a confrontar un crise de confidentia public contra le qual illes activemente debe luctar. Tentativemente e reluctamente, illes ha comenciate a responder a lor criticas, recognoscer lor proprie errores, publicar apertemente lor datos, e reformar lor habitos de travalio.

Le publication le autumno passate de centenares de messages de e-mail de un gruppo de climatologos del Universitate de East Anglia e revelationes plus recente de un parve gruppo de errores in un reporto con un reputation de integritate e confiabilitate del Nationes Unite ha create lo que un numero significante de scientistas multo prominente crede es un enorme carentia de confidentia in le conclusiones de lor projectos de recerca per grandissime sectores del publico. Illes ha concludite que iste crise menacia minar decadas de lor recerca e ha significanatemente damnificate le confidentia del publico in le interprisa scientific mesme.

Le publication de iste e-mails, cognoscite como “Climategate” per le criticos del calefaction global, ha revelate arrogantia e lo que un famose climatologo appellava “sentimentos de tribalismo” inter multes de illes. Iste correspondentia ha monstrate lo que appare esser effortios pro limitar le publication de opiniones que oppone le conclusiones generalmente accipite per le gruppo. Alicunes de iste messages revelava certe effortios de unes climatologos prominente pro celar datos de temperaturas de recercatores rival e de manipular lor resultatos pro conformar a conclusiones al quales illes jam habeva arrivate.

“Obviemente, io ha scribite alicun terribile messges de e-mail”, confessava Phil Jones, le climatologo britannic al centro del controversia, a un committee special del parlamento Britannic. Ma ille se defendeva fortissimemente contra allegations de haber celate o falsificate su datos. Alicunes del allegationes contra le Dr. Jones ha essite revelate como false, ma on totevia sta a investigar alteres que es assatis seriose.

Iste scandalo tamen ha damnificate seriosemente le reputation del disciplina de climatologia mesme. Un studio per Yale University e George Mason University trovava que le numero de americanos qui crede que le calefaction global es un fraude o conspiratia scientific se ha multiplicate per plus que duo vices desde 2008, de 7% a 16% del population total. Un altere gruppo de americanos, 13% del total, diceva que illes crede que mesmo si nostre planeta se califace, le problema es solmente le resultato de factores natural e non es un problema significante.

Le tribo de climatologos nunc sape que su membros sta a confrontar se con un problema significante e comencia a cercar manieras de recuperar lor reputation. “Il es clar que le communitate de climatologos non esseva preparate pro le ferocitate general del attaccos contra illes, e illes non ha respondite rapidemente e appropriatemente”, diceva Peter C. Frumhoft, un ecologo e scientista principal del Union of Concerned Scientists. “Nos ha besonio de recognoscer nostre errores e travaliar pro diverter le attention del publico de lo que passa in le blogosphera a lo que passa in le atmosphera.”

Un numero de institutiones nunc comencia a meliorar le qualitate de lor scientia e a augmentar le transparentia de lor travalios. Le agentia Britannic que survelia le activitates del climatologos in ille pais nunc sta a re-evaluar omne su datos sur le temperatura del atmosphera e tosto facera disponibile al publico general omne su archivos e analyses, permittente que alteres examina lor methodos e conclusiones. E le organisation del Nationes Unite sur le climatologia comencia a defender se.

Duo universitates sta a investigar le travalio del climatologos principal pro determiner si illes ha violate principios academic general e ha minate injustificabilemente le confidentia general del publico in le scientia. Le Academia National de Scientias del Statos Unite prepara a publicar un reporto pro le publico in general con un schizzo de lo que on nunc sape e lo que on totevia non sape sur le cambios in le clima global. E le membros del communitate climatologic sta a debatter vigorosemente como illes pote augmentar le transparentia de lor travalio e re-establir le confidentia del publico in lor activitates.

Ma Willis Eschenbach, un ingeniero e forte critico del climatollogia qui publica sovente in blogs que critica le climatologia diceva isto: “Io non vole que on apprende melior manieras de facer propaganda pro scientia defectuose. Io non vole que on apprende a inspirar confidentia per le uso de practicas innovative e deceptive que solmente produce mentitas plus efficace. Lo que le climatologos debe facer es stoppar le production de immunditias e insister que illo es scientia.”

Ralph J. Cicerone, le presidente del Academia National de Scientias, le plus prestigiose organisation scientific in le Statos Unite, diceva que ille videva un periculo que le carentia de confidentia del publico in le climatologia poterea crescer a in un crise general de respecto per multe sectores del population in omne le disciplinas del scientia mesme. Ille diceva que le scientistas del mundo debe surveliar se plus efficacemente e facer plus grande effortios pro responder plus fortemente a lor criticos in le radio, television, e Internet. “Iste es un activitate in le qual nos non ha multo experientia”, diceva le Dr. Cicerone, un specialista in le chimia atmospheric.

Le battalia es asymmetric in le sentito que scientistas es accostumate a appoiar lor discoperimentos con observation attente e experimentos replicabile, durante que lor criticos ha le libertate de facer asseverationes sin le appoio de evidentia que le travalios del scientia es fraudulente.

“Nos debe explicar plus efficacemente que il sempre a alique nove a apprender e que nostre travalio non pote esser characterisate per le certitude total”, diceva John P. Holdren, un scientista ambiental e consiliero al Casa Blanc. “Ma nos anque debe communicar al publico que le occasiones quando un grande consenso scientific es demolite per un heretico scientific es multo rar.”

Nulle organisation scientific se trova sub examination plus critic que le Panello Intergovernamental sur Cambios Climatic del Nationes Unite, que compila e organisa le studios le plus “definitive” sur cambios climatic de centenares de scientistas in omne le partes del planeta pro guidar le governamentos del mundo in lor decisiones durante que illes delibera pro arrivar a nove politicas sur le calefaction global. Le criticos de iste organisaton, citante diverse errores assatis minor in su reporto le plus recente, ha accusate su director, Rajanda K. Pachauri, de haber conflictos de interesse in su surveliantia del publication e vole que on elimina o reforma radicalmente iste organismo del Nationes Unite.

Post septimanas de confrontar su criticas iste organismo annunciava que illo demandarea le creation de un panello independente pro revider su methodos de operation pro essayar a eliminar errores e possible conflictos de interesse de su publicationes in le futuro. Ma mesmo durante que ille faceva iste cambios, le Dr. Pachauri insisteva que omne le travalio previe del organismo esseva valide. “Le scientistas del mundo debe continuemente ganiar le respecto del publico”, diceva le Dr. Pachauri, “o nos curre le risco de cader in un nove Etate Obscur in le qual le ideologia es plus potente que le ration”.

Ma alicun climatologos diceva que responder al scepticos de lor travalios esseva completamente inutile. “On paga le climatologos del mundo pro studiar le clima”, diceva Gavin A Schmidt, un climatologo senior del Instituto Goddard pro Studios del Spatio de NASA. “Illes non ha le obligation de persuader le publico.”

Ille diceva que le recente criticos del climatologia habeva essite inspirate tanto per iste hiberno exceptionalmente frigide como per lo que le publico percipe como irregularitates in le travalio del climatologos del mundo. “Il sempre ha habite personas qui nos accusa de esser criminales e fraudatores corrupte”, diceva le Dr. Schmidt. “Lo que es nove es que iste paranoia, combinate con le actual inverno frigide del Statos Unite e le e-mails de Climategate, ha producite un tempesta que ha date potentia temporanee a iste gruppo de idiotas. Le melior vengiantia que nos pote haber contra illes es continuar a producer studios scientific valide.”

---

The climatologists of the world start to defend themselves.

For a period of months there has been a lot of criticism of the climatologists who have warned us about the problems of global warming. Up to now, they have dismissed their critics as ignoramuses who they didn’t have to get involved with.

But the amount of criticism and the extent of doubt that has been expressed by the public has only grown, and many scientists have concluded that they are confronting a crisis of public confidence that they have to actively fight against. Tentatively and reluctantly, they have started to answer their critics, recognize their own mistakes, publish their data openly, and reform their work habits.

The publication last fall of hundreds of e-mail messages sent by a group of climatologists at the University of East Anglia and more recent revelations of a small group of errors in a report with a reputation for integrity and reliability by the United Nations has created what a significant number of very prominent scientists say is an enormous lack of confidence in the conclusions of their research projects by very large sectors of the public. They have concluded that this crisis threatens to undermine decades of their research and has significantly damaged the confidence of the public in the scientific enterprise itself.

The publication of these e-mails, known as “Climategate” by the critics of global warming, has revealed arrogance and what a famous climatologist called “feelings of tribalism” among many of them. This correspondence has shown what appears to be efforts to limit the publication of opinions that oppose the generally accepted conclusions of the group. Some of these messages revealed certain efforts by some prominent climatologists to conceal temperature data from rival researchers and to manipulate their results to conform to conclusions they had already arrived at.

“Obviously, I have written some terrible e-mail messages,” confessed Phil Jones, the British climatologist at the center of the controversy, to a special committee of the British Parliament. But he very strongly defended himself against accusations of having concealed or falsified his data. Some of the accusations against Dr. Jones have been revealed to be groundless, but investigations are continuing of other ones that are rather serious.

This scandal, however, has seriously damaged the reputation of the discipline of climatology itself. A study by Yale and George Mason University found that the number of Americans who believe that global warming is a fraud or scientific conspiracy has more than doubled since 2008, having risen from 7% to 16% of the total population. Another group of Americans, 15% of the total, said that they believe that even if our planet is warming, the problem is only the result of natural factors and is not a significant one.

The tribe of climatologists now knows that its members are confronting a significant problem and are starting to look for ways to restore their reputation. “It is clear that the community of climatologists was not prepared for the general ferocity of the attacks against them, and they have not responded rapidly and appropriately,” said Peter C. Frumhoft, an ecologist and the chief scientist of the Union of Concerned Scientists. “We need to recognize our mistakes and work to divert the attention of the public from what is happening in the blogosphere to what is happening in the atmosphere.”

A number of institutions are now beginning to improve the quality of their science and increase the transparency of their work. The British agency that supervises the activities of climatologists in that country is now re-evaluationg all its data on the temperature of the atmosphere and will soon make available to the general public all their archives and analyses, allowing others to examine their methods and conclusions. And the United Nations organization on climatology is starting to defend itself.

Two universities are investigating the work of the chief climatologists to determine if they have violated general academic principals and have unjustifiably undermined the public’s general confidence in science. The U.S. National Academy of Science is preparing to publish a report for the general public with a sketch of what is now known and what is still unknown about changes in the global climate. And the members of the climatological community are vigorously debating how they can increase the transparency of their work and re-establish the confidence of the public in their activities.

But Willis Eschenbach, an engineer and strong critic of climatology who publishes frequently in blogs that criticize climatology said this: “I don’t want them to learn better ways of coming up with propaganda for defective science. I don’t want them to inspire confidence by the use of innovative and deceptive practices that only produce more effective lies. What the climatologists must do is stop the production of garbage and insist that it is science.”

Ralph J. Cicerone, the president of the National Academy of Sciences, the most prestigious scientific organization in the United States, said that he sees a danger that the public’s lack of confidence in climatology could mature into a general crisis of respect by many sectors of the population in all the disciplines of science itself. He said that the scientists of the world must police themselves more effectively and make greater efforts to answer their critics more strongly on the radio, television and the Internet. “This is an activity that we don’t have much experience in,” said Dr. Cicerone, a specialist in atmospheric chemistry.

The battle is asymmetric in the sense that scientists are used to supporting their discoveries with careful observartion and replicable experiments, while their critics have the liberty of making statements without the support of evidence that the work of science is fraudulent.

“We must explain more effectively that there is always something new to learn and that our work cannot be characterized by total certainty,” said John P. Holdren, an environmental scientist and advisor to the White House. “But we also must communicate to the public that the occasions when a large scientific consensus is demolished by a scientific heretic are very rare.”

No scientific organization is being examined more critically than the United Nations’ Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change, which compiles and organizes the most “definitive” studies on climate change by hundreds of scientists everywhere on the planet to guide the governments of the world in their decisions as they deliberate to arrive at new policies on global warming. The critics of this organization, citing various rather minor errors in its most recent report, have accused its director, Rajanda K. Pachauri, of having conflicts of interest in his supervision of the publication and want this U.N. organization to be eliminated or radically reformed.

After weeks of confronting their critics, this organization announced that it would ask for the creation of an independent panel to review its methods of operation to try to eliminate errors and possible conflicts of interests in its publications in the future. But even while he made these changes, Dr. Pachauri insisted that all the previous work of the organization was valid. “The scientists of the world must continually earn the respect of the public,” said Dr. Pachauri, “or we run the risk of falling into a new Dark Age in which ideology is more important than reason.”

But some climatologists say that responding to skeptics of their work is completely useless. “The climatologists of the world are paid to study the climate,” said Gavin A. Schmidt, a senior climatologists of NASA’s Goddard Institute for the Study of Space. “They don’t have the obligation to persuade the public.”

He said that the recent critics of climatology had been inspired as much by this exceptionally cold winter as by what the public perceives as irregularities in the work of the climatologists of the world. “There have always been people who accuse us of being criminals and corrupt frauds,” said Dr. Schmidt. “What is new is that this paranoia, combined with the current cold winter in the United States and the Climategate e-mails, has produced a storm that has given temporary power to this group of idiots. The best revenge that we can have against them is to continue to produce valid scientific studies.”