前言:拯救气候科学

Meritxell Ramírez‐i‐Ollé
{"title":"前言:拯救气候科学","authors":"Meritxell Ramírez‐i‐Ollé","doi":"10.7765/9781526140999.00006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Climate science has long been in trouble and I wish to help it with this book. As the climate scientist Michael E. Mann (2012) vividly recounts in his autobiography, the ‘climate wars’ and heated public disputes about the accuracy of climate science originated in the early 1990s when the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published its first report summarising the scientific evidence of climate change for policy-makers. As Mann also narrates in first person, the most malicious personal attack on climate science occurred in November 2009, when thousands of private emails and documents sent and received by prominent climate scientists (including Mann himself) were stolen and published online. The anonymous hackers justified this ominous attack by saying, ‘We feel the climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, codes and documents. Hopefully, it will give some insights into the science and the people behind it’ (Pearce, 2010: 166). The hackers indeed succeeded in opening the workings of climate science to the public. For months, the climate scientists whose emails had been stolen were the focus of media attention and were investigated by multiple university and parliamentary inquiries under allegations of obstruction to open access to scientific data and failures of objectivity in peer-review and research assessment. The hacking and its aftermath, as the House of Commons admitted in its inquiry report, were a ‘traumatic and challenging experience for all involved and to the wider world of science’ (House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, 2010: 33). The authority of climate scientists has been eroded since the turn of the twentyfirst century by what seems to be a more general phenomenon: what happens inside many sciences has become visible to a highly educated and self-confident citizenry, as television and the Internet have opened up once exclusive and hidden spaces to public scrutiny (Collins, 2014; Gregory and Miller, 1998). The challenge faced by climate scientists is depicted in a cartoon published in The Economist shortly after the hacking (Figure P.1): the robust stock of knowledge that has been privately generated and validated by thousands of climate scientists for years (represented by a fortified tower of IPCC reports in the cartoon) is now under direct assault and surveillance from outside experts (as seen by the fact that these outsiders wear laboratory coats in the cartoon).","PeriodicalId":277841,"journal":{"name":"Into the woods","volume":"285 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Preface: saving climate science\",\"authors\":\"Meritxell Ramírez‐i‐Ollé\",\"doi\":\"10.7765/9781526140999.00006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Climate science has long been in trouble and I wish to help it with this book. As the climate scientist Michael E. Mann (2012) vividly recounts in his autobiography, the ‘climate wars’ and heated public disputes about the accuracy of climate science originated in the early 1990s when the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published its first report summarising the scientific evidence of climate change for policy-makers. As Mann also narrates in first person, the most malicious personal attack on climate science occurred in November 2009, when thousands of private emails and documents sent and received by prominent climate scientists (including Mann himself) were stolen and published online. The anonymous hackers justified this ominous attack by saying, ‘We feel the climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, codes and documents. Hopefully, it will give some insights into the science and the people behind it’ (Pearce, 2010: 166). The hackers indeed succeeded in opening the workings of climate science to the public. For months, the climate scientists whose emails had been stolen were the focus of media attention and were investigated by multiple university and parliamentary inquiries under allegations of obstruction to open access to scientific data and failures of objectivity in peer-review and research assessment. The hacking and its aftermath, as the House of Commons admitted in its inquiry report, were a ‘traumatic and challenging experience for all involved and to the wider world of science’ (House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, 2010: 33). The authority of climate scientists has been eroded since the turn of the twentyfirst century by what seems to be a more general phenomenon: what happens inside many sciences has become visible to a highly educated and self-confident citizenry, as television and the Internet have opened up once exclusive and hidden spaces to public scrutiny (Collins, 2014; Gregory and Miller, 1998). The challenge faced by climate scientists is depicted in a cartoon published in The Economist shortly after the hacking (Figure P.1): the robust stock of knowledge that has been privately generated and validated by thousands of climate scientists for years (represented by a fortified tower of IPCC reports in the cartoon) is now under direct assault and surveillance from outside experts (as seen by the fact that these outsiders wear laboratory coats in the cartoon).\",\"PeriodicalId\":277841,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Into the woods\",\"volume\":\"285 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-11-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Into the woods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7765/9781526140999.00006\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Into the woods","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7765/9781526140999.00006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

气候科学长期陷入困境,我希望通过这本书来帮助它。正如气候科学家迈克尔·e·曼恩(Michael E. Mann, 2012)在他的自传中生动描述的那样,“气候战争”和公众对气候科学准确性的激烈争论起源于20世纪90年代初,当时联合国政府间气候变化专门委员会(IPCC)发表了第一份报告,为政策制定者总结了气候变化的科学证据。正如曼恩以第一个人的口吻叙述的那样,对气候科学最恶意的人身攻击发生在2009年11月,当时著名气候科学家(包括曼恩本人)发送和接收的数千封私人电子邮件和文件被窃取并在网上公布。匿名黑客为这次不祥的攻击辩护说:“我们觉得气候科学在当前形势下太重要了,不能保密。”我们在此发布随机选择的信件,代码和文件。希望它能对科学和背后的人提供一些见解”(Pearce, 2010: 166)。黑客们确实成功地向公众公开了气候科学的运作。几个月来,电子邮件被盗的气候科学家成为媒体关注的焦点,并受到多所大学和议会的调查,他们被指控阻碍科学数据的公开获取,在同行评审和研究评估中缺乏客观性。正如下议院在其调查报告中承认的那样,黑客事件及其后果“对所有参与者和更广泛的科学界来说都是一次创伤性和挑战性的经历”(下议院科学技术委员会,2010:33)。自21世纪初以来,气候科学家的权威已经被一种似乎更普遍的现象所侵蚀:许多科学内部发生的事情已经被受过高等教育和自信的公民所看到,因为电视和互联网已经向公众监督开放了曾经的独家和隐藏空间(Collins, 2014;格雷戈里和米勒,1998)。在黑客袭击发生后不久,《经济学人》上发表的一幅漫画描绘了气候科学家面临的挑战(图P.1):由数千名气候科学家多年来私下产生并验证的强大知识储备(漫画中由IPCC报告的坚固塔表示)现在正受到外部专家的直接攻击和监视(从漫画中这些局外人穿着实验室外套的事实可以看出)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Preface: saving climate science
Climate science has long been in trouble and I wish to help it with this book. As the climate scientist Michael E. Mann (2012) vividly recounts in his autobiography, the ‘climate wars’ and heated public disputes about the accuracy of climate science originated in the early 1990s when the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published its first report summarising the scientific evidence of climate change for policy-makers. As Mann also narrates in first person, the most malicious personal attack on climate science occurred in November 2009, when thousands of private emails and documents sent and received by prominent climate scientists (including Mann himself) were stolen and published online. The anonymous hackers justified this ominous attack by saying, ‘We feel the climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, codes and documents. Hopefully, it will give some insights into the science and the people behind it’ (Pearce, 2010: 166). The hackers indeed succeeded in opening the workings of climate science to the public. For months, the climate scientists whose emails had been stolen were the focus of media attention and were investigated by multiple university and parliamentary inquiries under allegations of obstruction to open access to scientific data and failures of objectivity in peer-review and research assessment. The hacking and its aftermath, as the House of Commons admitted in its inquiry report, were a ‘traumatic and challenging experience for all involved and to the wider world of science’ (House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, 2010: 33). The authority of climate scientists has been eroded since the turn of the twentyfirst century by what seems to be a more general phenomenon: what happens inside many sciences has become visible to a highly educated and self-confident citizenry, as television and the Internet have opened up once exclusive and hidden spaces to public scrutiny (Collins, 2014; Gregory and Miller, 1998). The challenge faced by climate scientists is depicted in a cartoon published in The Economist shortly after the hacking (Figure P.1): the robust stock of knowledge that has been privately generated and validated by thousands of climate scientists for years (represented by a fortified tower of IPCC reports in the cartoon) is now under direct assault and surveillance from outside experts (as seen by the fact that these outsiders wear laboratory coats in the cartoon).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Fieldwork Series editor’s foreword Preface: saving climate science Dendrochronology Introduction: epistemography
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1