About us
Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.Recommended
Andrew Sullivan Dan Sullivan Doug Arellanes Emmanuelle Richard Faith Sullivan Fred Bortz Heather Havrilesky Henry Copeland Kate Sullivan Ken Layne lagreenbean.com LAist.com Maggie Sullivan Matt Welch NewYorkology Opinion L.A. Ron Kaye Slashdot Steve Elzer & Family TheNewsroom.org Thor Garcia Tony Pierce Wonkette OlderThanks CNET for naming Science Blog one of your Blog 100!
Thanks, Steve, for adding the pointers to the critiques.
I like the paper, even with its flaws, for two reasons:
(1) It is bait for the global warming denialists to misinterpret. Indeed, a Google search reveals some who looked at the abstract and assumed that the paper denied the anthropogenic causes. If they shout loud enough about it, we can come in and say, "Read the paper. It accepts that anthropogenic factors are the cause of Earth's warming."
(2) It shows how science can work, even in a heated political environment. Hammel and Lockwood thought their result was interesting. If the weak correlation they see is true, then those results may be signs of some solar effects that are not being considered in current climate models (even if those effects are minuscule in comparison to the anthropogenic ones). Basically, they are saying "stay tuned." A lot of papers do that.
Without the politics, Tamarino probably wouldn't have gone so far as to say that the paper shouldn't be published. He probably just would have ignored it as one of many non-compelling results in the literature.
On the other hand, without the politics, I wonder whether Hammel, Lockwood, and others in the editorial chain would have published such a preliminary result. They certainly knew they denialists would pounce on it, and I think that was part of the appeal.
But whatever critiques people offer, they can't deny that the work is an example of the way scientists develop and evaluate hypotheses. The paper presents its data fairly, puts in in context with other work, and presents a possible interpretation that can be tested by further observation.
I offered it here as a counter-example to those people who claim that climate science is held captive by a vast conspiracy, and that those who stray from the party line should fear retribution. Hammel and Lockwood published their findings because they found an interesting question in them. (So do I.) No one is going to threaten their funding because they asked that question.
Fred Bortz
Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com)
and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)