Thursday, 26. November 2009, 17:35:41
目前为止，对CRU文件泄露事件的评论基本集中在blog圈子，“主流媒体”关注得还不多，即使有提及也显得缺乏激情，和他们的习惯不符。比如特别喜欢刊登内幕的纽约时报现在说这些文件是被盗的，不宜刊载。这个观点也出现在一些不愿意谈论此事的科学blog上，如德国著名研究机构雨里希研究所的某博士。
目前还不能从科学的角度*确定*这批人在造假，所以很多想为他们辩护的人都强调了这一点——没发现大阴谋；另外一些辩护策略比如即使批评也要说虽然怀疑暖化的人常常撒谎，但是我们的道德标准应该比他们高……（是不是叫以攻为守？）；或者强调“科学家也是人……”——大陆人民常见的说法。
至于能把没有大阴谋作为辩护词也侧面说明了很多人都误认为气候科学家是沆瀣一气的。这是不对的，这些email中被他们敌视的对象有其他的科学家。此外还有很多研究气候问题的科学家研究领域和这批人没有直接的冲突。
我认为这些email反映出的最重要的问题目前还不是具体研究中有没有造假，而是这批科学家对科学研究和政治决策的影响：
这批人在email中显示出他们对发表了不同观点的人、发表不同观点论文的科学杂志或者其编辑，提倡采用极无科研道德操守的对策，比如想办法让编辑辞职、要把某杂志排挤出同行评议科学杂志的圈子。而且不限于口头发泄，比如德国汉堡大学von Storch教授是email中的攻击对象之一，他在自己的网站提到当年Mann是如何把他排除出学术会议的：
Also mails from/to Eduardo Zorita and myself are included; also we have been subject of frequent mentioning, usually not in a flattering manner. Interesting exchanges, and evidences, are contained about efforts to destroy "Climate Research"（注：一本专业杂志）; that we in the heydays of the hockeystick debate shared our ECHO-G data with our adversaries; and that Mike Mann was successful to exclude me from a review-type meeting on historical reconstructions in Wengen (demonstrating again his problematic but powerful role of acting as a gatekeeper.)
von Storch说得没错，这批人代表了气候研究科学家中属于VIP的一群，他们控制着数据、控制着IPCC，对其他国家的决策人也有重要影响，比如上面提到的主角Mann就是德国总理的气候变化问题顾问。
你能相信这批惯于利用自己的权威、用非学术手段解决学术问题的人做一个公正的顾问么？
这里还有一个问题就是：为什么他们会成为VIP？Freeman Dyson在他的书《A Many-Colored Glass》说过一个现象，很值得考虑：
In the modern world, science and society often interact in a perverse way. We live in a technological society, and technology causes political problems. The politicians and the public expect science to provide answers to the problems. Scientific experts are paid and encouraged to provide answers. The public does not have much use for a scientist who says, "Sorry, but we don't know". The public prefers to listen to scientists who give confident answers to questions and make confident predictions of what will happen as a result of human activities. So it happens that the experts who talk publicly about politically contentious questions tend to speak more clearly than they think. They make confident predictions about the future, and end up believing their own predictions. Their predictions become dogmas which they do not question. The public is led to believe that the fashionable scientific dogmas are true, and it may sometimes happen that they are wrong. That is why heretics who question the dogmas are needed.
WIDGETIZE