Listening to the BBC moral maze on the 2nd 12th 2009, which discussed the neutrality of science. Where does the ethics of science begin and morality end? The debate was provoked by the problems of ‘climategate’.
The default defensive position of the politician is to use and say, as justification; “that the evidence says…”, which enables the politician to justify a political position and consequently help to make a decision. Is the politician hiding behind the facts and, can science be neutral?
It is without doubt that Climategate, has now become politically charged debate. Was it ever not a politically motivated subject? At the core of this particular spat is the accusation of ‘manipulation of the data’ by some scientists. The change was levelled after hacked (stolen) e-mails.
For the record, I do personally think that there is climate change, some of it is un-doubtable down to human activity, I have been convinced of man-made interference since the the causal effects of CFC upon the Ozone depletion. 80% of which is from anthropogenic (man-made) sources.
However, increasingly I have become ever more sceptical over the claim that scientists make about neutrality. This would, and does include everybody else as well, in making the ‘a’ claim of neutrality. This position has not been helped in reading (if true) the stolen e-mail by professor Phil Jones:
”If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them”.
The answer to the problem – MAKE all evidence transparent – and OPEN.
No comments:
Post a Comment