It will obviously be some time before the argument is concluded and the dust settles. Most importantly, however, and unlike MBH for their 1998 paper, MM have made full disclosure of all the assumptions made and techniques used in their manipulation of the data, have posted the data they used on a freely-accessible web site, and have invited other scientists to comment on or check their conclusions.
In the meantime, it is clear that the McIntyre and McKitrick paper is set to become one of the most important that has been published in recent years. Quite apart from the light that it throws on the climate debate, the paper raises profound issues to do with the integrity of scientific publication, how data which underpins published papers should be archived and made available, and whether science advice given to governments on policy matters by bodies like the IPCC, or by their own bureaucrats, should be systematically and rigorously audited.
After all, if it transpires that journals such as Nature are unable to separate politically correct from high quality science, then there can be little hope that even the most alert bureaucrat or politician will be able to separate science from hype.
Advertisement
Several science-based environmental issues are dominant within the current Australian political scene; Murray-Darling salinity, Great Barrier Reef health, GM-food and the disposal of radioactive waste come to mind, in addition to climate change issues. Australia should consider following Denmark’s example and setting up a national science audit unit to verify the soundness of advice that the federal government receives from its departments and commissions on these and other scientific matters. Such an audit unit could be funded with the money saved by closing down the Australian Greenhouse Office.
This article was first published in The Australian Financial Review on 3 November 2003.
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.
2 posts so far.