Charles Martin, writing in Pajamas Media, explains why science is a social contract which to be meaningful requires open debate, peer review, transparency in methodology, sharing of data, and most of all, trust.
Why and how did the East Anglia CRU violate that trust and break that social contract?
We’re only beginning to analyze and understand the full implications of these emails and the associated data. Among other things, however, these emails suggest that a number of highly reputable climate scientists had been conniving for years to prevent other researchers from obtaining the data needed to replicate climate science results. At the same time, these scientists appear to have colluded to subvert the whole peer review process in order to prevent critical or contradictory results from being published.
This violates the whole social contract that is the basis of what we call science.
Clarice Feldman
Share
