From the article:

"on the other a powerful lobby of industrial associations determined to trivialize the dangers of global warming. This latter group is supported by the conservative wing of the American political spectrum, conspiracy theorists as well as critical scientists."

I've followed global warming for more than ten years. I posted a chart of temperatures for Atlanta and Newnan, Georgia from 1900 to 2000 on the wall in my office. I never had anyone explain why the trend line in Newnan went down while Atlanta went up (hint...urban heat island effects),

I've followed the Watts Up With That website analysis of the US temprature recording stations. One of the closest stations to me, Gainesville, Ga, has the sensor located within six feet of a residential driveway. I'm certain the homeowner never parks the family CO2 emitter close enough to affect the readings.

And now Der Speigal wants people to believe conseratives and special interests are part of the problem. In the words of J Books (John Wayne) in The Shootist, "Well, Pardon the hell out of me!".

Not original, but to the point. There comes a time when one side of an argument is shown to be mostly correct and one side to be mostly wrong. That time haws arrived.

Regards,

Johnny Johns

In addition to the problems with bias and data distortion, it would be nice as a general matter to see a little more humility from people who are doing quantitative modeling of complex phenomena...whether the phenomena in question involve climate change or mortgage-backed securities.

There are many people to blame here (all the most important ones being on the left), but from my point of view the true center of all evil in this matter lies with the scientific journals.

No paper should even be considered for publication, no paper should even be sent to referees, unless all the data it is based on is in the public domain, and all the computer code used to analyze that data is in the public domain. "Proprietary" code used to analyze "proprietary" data should only reside in "proprietary" papers and should never be published.

Of course, availability of data and code, although necessary, is not sufficient. There must be some reason to trust the data. Also, the code must be clear enough so that the reviewer can judge that it makes sense -- so that even Harry can understand it. In particular, if the code processes the data by making a huge number of "adjustments", and if those adjustments are so crucial that they completely affect the reported outcomes, then the validity of those adjustments must be a central part of the paper and a central part of what the referee is judging.

The Spiegel article's even handedness is misplaced, IMO.

First, if you've followed Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit blog and/or read The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science, there must be no doubt in your mind that the science of global warming is not settled.

Second, there is no excuse — none whatsoever — for scientists to react to political pressure, either from the right or left, as der Spiegel apologetically implies those honest souls, victims all, did . . .

What, I ask you, is the purpose of tenure if not to insulate academics from precisely the kinds of pressures that der Spiegel alledges forced these "victim scientists" into caving in?

Minerva..I'm not sure that employment security, in the form of tenure or otherwise, usually has the expected effects on courage to stand up against the tide. In the disastrous shuttle launch decisions, for example, many of those involved were surely Federal employees with Civil Service protections.

The desire to avoid being exiled to professional outer darkness, even if one gets to keep one's job, seems to be very strong in most people. And it's also possible that careers offering high employment security tend to attract many people for whom security is extraordinarily important--who will probably not be those most likely to take an unpopoular stand.