Futurismic's Tom Marcinko does a great job of putting this in context, rounding up several links to other good commentators around the web. In a nutshell: science is about the advancement of competing theories and the evaluation of these theories in light of evidence. The East Anglia Climate Research Unit's scientists disagreed in some particulars, and used peer-review to resolve them (and continue to do so). No one is paying them to cover up evidence that climate change isn't real or isn't caused by humans -- but they are conducting science the way that scientists do.
Smart enough to hack, not sophisticated enough to appreciate the daily give-and-take of how science works-is that how we nonscientists are going to approach critical issues? Maybe we can do better than that.Those hacked climate e-mails: Good scientists, poor conspirators
- BBC's snappy answers to climate-change denial - Boing Boing
- Understanding the economics of climate change mitigation - Boing Boing
- Freakonomics Sequel Gets Climate Change Wrong - Boing Boing
- James Lovelock and climate change - Boing Boing
- US Chamber of Commerce suing the Yes Men - Boing Boing
- Debunking the climate-change denialists' talking-points - Boing Boing
- Engineering approach to global climate change - Boing Boing
- Climate change denialists winning the race for "Best Science Blog ...
I write books. My latest is a YA science fiction novel called Homeland (it's the sequel to Little Brother). More books: Rapture of the Nerds (a novel, with Charlie Stross); With a Little Help (short stories); and The Great Big Beautiful Tomorrow (novella and nonfic). I speak all over the place and I tweet and tumble, too.