Diamantplaneter, klimatförändring och den vetenskapliga metoden

Uppmärksammar en mycket bra artikel i The Conversation skriven av Matthew Bailes, en av forskarna bakom upptäckten av diamantplaneten som väckt uppmärksamhet i pressen. Bailes jämför mottagandet av deras upptäckt och vad klimatforskare får utstå:

The attention we received was 100% positive, but how different that could have been.
How so? Well, we could have been climate scientists.
Imagine for a minute that, instead of discovering a diamond planet, we’d made a breakthrough in global temperature projections.
Let’s say we studied computer models of the influence of excessive greenhouse gases, verified them through observations, then had them peer-reviewed and published in Science.
Instead of sitting back and basking in the glory, I suspect we’d find a lot of commentators, many with no scientific qualifications, pouring scorn on our findings.
People on the fringe of science would be quoted as opponents of our work, arguing that it was nothing more than a theory yet to be conclusively proven.
There would be doubt cast on the interpretation of our data and conjecture about whether we were “buddies” with the journal referees.

Bailes påpekar vidare det viktiga, men allt för ofta bortglömda

It may come as a big surprise to many, but there is actually no difference between how science works in astronomy and climate change – or any other scientific discipline for that matter.
We make observations, run simulations, test and propose hypotheses, and undergo peer review of our findings.

Samt hur vetenskapen går framåt och dess universallitet

Of course we all make mistakes. But eventually the prevailing wisdom of the community triumphs and the field advances. It’s wonderful to be a part of that process.
...
In all fields of science, papers are challenged and statistics are debated. If there is any basis to these challenges they stand, but if not they fall by the wayside and the field continues to advance.
When big theories fall, it isn’t because of business or political pressures – it’s because of the scientific process.
Sadly, the same media commentators who celebrate diamond planets without question are all too quick to dismiss the latest peer-reviewed evidence that suggests man-made activities are responsible for changes in concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere.
The scientific method is universal. If we selectively ignore it in certain disciplines, we do so at our peril.

Läs hela artikeln här!