Kürzlich verfasste der australische Geowissenschaftler Michael Asten einen Essay für die Mitgliederzeitschrift Eos der American Geophysical Union (AGU), einer Organisation in der auch Sebastian Lüning Mitglied ist. Die Redaktion von Eos mochte den Artikel gar nicht und lehnte die Veröffentlichung ab, da im Beitrag Kritik an der einseitigen, klimaalarmistischen Sichtweise der Organisation anklang. Dabei verwies die AGU darauf, dass es in den Klimawissenschaften gar keine Kontroverse existieren würde und sich die Wissenschaft zur kommenden Klimakatastrophe einig sei. Hier der Brief der unterhaltsame Brief der Eos-Redaktion an den Wissenschaftler (Fettsetzung ergänzt):
Dear Dr. Asten:
Thank you for approaching Eos as a possible outlet for a Forum piece entitled “Ideas and diversity in climate science – and a challenge to students” (manuscript 2014ES004601). I apologize for the delay in getting back to you.
After thoughtful and lengthy consultation with colleagues and AGU staff, I have decided to reject the submission based on the significant scientific consensus regarding the question of human-induced climate change. While discussion of this topic continues, it is no longer a topic of scientific controversy.
There is an extensive body of scientific literature that supports the view highlighted in AGU’s position statement that “humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the last fifty years.” The latest IPCC and NCA reports, which are based primarily on peer-reviewed research, (much of it published in AGU journals), echo these findings.
The core of your Forum proposal is that the opposing arguments about climate change “rarely appear in AGU commentaries.” I understand that you have a perspective that does not align with the consensus presented in AGU’s position statement, or the findings of the IPCC and NCA reports. While open debate is essential to success of scientific research, I respectfully recommend that peer-reviewed journals or scientific meetings are the best places to explore these differences, not the Eos Forum pages.
Again, I apologize for the delay in responding to your proposal.
Sincerely,
(name)
Editor, Eos
Da Eos nicht wollte, hat nun Judith Curry den Artikel einfach in ihrem Blog veröffentlicht (pdf hier) und kommentiert:
Ideas and diversity in climate science – and a challenge to students
Reports of the AGU Fall Meeting (EOS 4 Feb 2014) contained a strange gap when representing issues of climate change science – a disappointing amnesia regarding points two and three of our mission statement:• Open exchange of ideas and information
• Diversity of backgrounds, scientific ideas and approachesThe review of Simon Lamb’s film “On Thin Ice” noted that it brought tears to the eyes of one viewer, but after viewing the film online I reserve my tears for the fact that the AGU is able to endorse such a single-themed piece of descriptive science. The film’s educational strength is the portrayal of scientists at work, but it fails to portray scientific method in considering those parts of the science which don’t fit an over-simplified scenario of CO2-driven anthropogenic global warming (AGW). The makers of the film could have consulted a range of AGU members who would have cogently explained that currently-available quantitative data sets demand a more multi-faceted approach.
The most glaring example of missing science was absence of mention of the feed-back loops of water vapour and cloud formation which amplify the warming associated with atmospheric CO2. The size of the amplification factor is the major influence and uncertainty in modelbased predictions of global warming, and attempts to quantify it using satellite data, historical meteorological data and paleo-temperature data provide a remarkably wide spread of estimates; I suggest that the wide spread of estimates is telling us there is more to the science than the simplistic CO2-temperature relation which the film presents.
