You’d think a German would go out of his way to be tolerant of a differing opinion.
The e-mail is below.
###
date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 09:35:18 +0200
from: cramer@pik-potsdam.de (Wolfgang Cramer)
subject: Climate Research
to: M.Hulme@uea.ac.uk (Mike Hulme)
Dear Mike,
let me ask you a short, not very deeply reflected question (although I
have thought about it for about six months): Do you still think Climate
Research is a journal you and I (at different levels) should have our names
on? I was extremely frustrated when they recently decided to publish one
of Pat Michaels’, in my mind, rather useless political sermons, against my
strong advice as a reviewer – and now I just received the latest issue with
a similar piece by this Vincent Gray. And I think these ones are not the
only examples.
I am really asking for your advice here, but my present feeling is that one
should
– either leave the journal (including perhaps making a public statement
about it – or I might, at least, write a more substantial letter to ALL the
editors, while here I am just contacting you),
– or initiate a serious discussion among editors and editorial advisors on
the question as to what constitutes a scientific contribution to the literature.
Presently, I am almost always frustrated when I get these issues in my
hands.
Cheers (more about the data issue later) – I enjoyed the meeting
yesterday, including your style of running it.
Wolfgang
If a scientific hypothesis cannot permit criticism of its data without resorting to ad hominem and blacklisting, then its foundation must be weak or flawed. Any TRUE scientist would welcome evidence that not only supports his/her premise, but also conflicting evidence from the ‘dark side’.
Climategate…the gift that keeps on giving.
Unless you’re a member of “The Team”, then it just keeps on taking…their credibility.