>> So the complaint is not that there's anything wrong with the results, but that they should have said more about the procedure by which they were obtained. T

>> So the complaint is not that there's anything wrong with the results, but that they should have said more about the procedure by which they were obtained. Then we just would have had people screaming about the conspiracy basing everythin on data they even admitted themselves was invalid. The "Broader Issues" section is actually more interesting: 35. Handling the blogosphere and non traditional scientific dialogue. One of the most obvious features of the climate change debate is the influence of the blogosphere. This provides an opportunity for unmoderated comment to stand alongside peer reviewed publications; for presentations or lectures at learned conferences to be challenged without inhibition; and for highly personalized critiques of individuals and their work to be promulgated without hindrance. This is a fact of life, and it would be foolish to challenge its existence. >>The Review team would simply urge all scientists to learn to communicate their work in ways that the public can access and understand. That said, a key issue is how scientists should be supported to explain their position,<< and how a public space can be created where these debates can be conducted on appropriate terms, where what is and is not uncertain can be recognised. The only people who (think they) have time to read scientific papers are (1) other scientists, and (2) people with an agenda. I've tried to read a couple, and keep getting lost and having to re-read parts, and maybe go look up what things mean, and it generally takes forever. 36. Openness and Reputation. An important feature of the blogosphere is the extent to which it demands openness and access to data. A failure to recognise this and to act appropriately, can lead to immense reputational damage by feeding allegations of cover up. Being part of a like minded group may provide no defence. Like it or not, >>this indicates a transformation in the way science has to be conducted in this century<<. They really can't be blamed too much, since what they did to make things worse didn't used to make things worse. Also, sufficient openness on issues that attract public attention is likely really hard. Scientific papers are meant to be read by other scientists in the same field, so they tend to be inaccessible to the general public. So you need to publish everything twice, once in a standard in-group format, and once in some sort of hypertext form that explains (or links to) all the details that you don't have to care about inside your in-group because everybody already knows them.