After obtain­ing and analysing the doc­u­ments and emails from the Cli­mate Research Unit email con­tro­versy (the so-called Cli­mate­gate emails), Der Spiegel “reveals how the war between cli­mate researchers and cli­mate skep­tics broke out, the tricks the two sides used to out­ma­neu­ver each other and how the con­flict could be resolved”.

The result is an excep­tional and com­pre­hen­sive arti­cle on the his­tory of the cli­mate change issue and the sci­en­tists’ place in it.

The arti­cle concludes:

Soci­ol­o­gist Peter Wein­gart believes that the dam­age could be irrepara­ble. “A loss of cred­i­bil­ity is the biggest risk inher­ent in sci­en­tific com­mu­ni­ca­tion,” he said, adding that trust can only be regained through com­plete transparency. […]

It seems all but impos­si­ble to pro­vide con­clu­sive proof in cli­mate research. Sci­en­tific philoso­pher Sil­vio Fun­tovicz [described] cli­mate research as a “post­nor­mal sci­ence.” On account of its high com­plex­ity, he said it was sub­ject to great uncer­tainty while, at the same time, har­bor­ing huge risks.

The experts there­fore face a dilemma: They have lit­tle chance of giv­ing the right advice. If they don’t sound the alarm, they are accused of not ful­fill­ing their moral oblig­a­tions. How­ever, alarmist pre­dic­tions are crit­i­cized if the pre­dicted changes fail to mate­ri­al­ize quickly.

Cli­ma­to­log­i­cal find­ings will prob­a­bly remain ambigu­ous even if fur­ther progress is made. Wein­gart says it’s now up to sci­en­tists and soci­ety to learn to come to terms with this. In par­tic­u­lar, he warns, politi­cians must under­stand that there is no such thing as clear results. “Politi­cians should stop lis­ten­ing to sci­en­tists who promise sim­ple answers,” Wein­gart says.

via Art and Let­ters Daily