Published in The Australian Financial Review, 19 Feb 2010
In “Shoot the messenger but accept the facts” (February 11), Nobel Laureate Peter Doherty says, “What keeps scientists honest is the constraint that their published data must be verifiable,” meaning peer-reviewed publications.
However reports like the Himalayan glacier errors and others in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s findings and East Anglia “climategate” show that peer review alone is not enough verification for an issue as big as climate change.
East Anglia is evidence that scientists with a vested interest cannot always be trusted. This adds doubt to the peer-review process which has never been perfect anyway. No one trains scientists on how to peer review but it’s the most verifiable and objective science available.
The IPCC engages committees that attempt to represent the best overall assessment of relevant peer reviewed publications. It’s an opinion measurement task that attempts to represent a scientific consensus. Just as peer review makes research more objective, a vote makes consensus measurement objective. Yet the IPCC has never verified its opinion measurements with a vote nor acknowledged dissenting opinions in its reports.
As I said in, “Copenhagen: red herring or lame duck?” (Letters, September 3, 2009), “A vote by experts is the only robust way to measure expert opinion on the science and economics of global warming”. Copenhagen was set to fail in its main objective because it was not supported with a resolute verified measure of scientific opinion. The right objective remains unclear without a vote.
A science vote will quantify the full range of opinions in a unified expression that respects all sides of the debate and sharpen the focus of peer reviewers. In contrast the IPCC’s less inclusive, unverified committee-style assessment process encourages division that confuses the public and policymakers.
All scientists agree that climate change science is extremely complex with many critical unknowns in the feedback mechanisms. Caution demands open debate and rigorous assessments of informed opinion resolved with frequent verifiable votes — inviting all specialists, working and retired and leading scientists like Doherty from other disciplines. The most verifiable, effective and practical vote will be transparent, continuous, interactive and online.
