While the primary people in the ClimateGate scandal and their media allies are continuing their efforts to downplay the importance of their scientific fraud other scientists are recognizing the gravity of this situation and are pushing for action in their own fields. From Jim Lindgren at The Volokh Conspiracy:
While the wider world is just beginning to realize that the subfield of paleoclimatology is in shambles (and has been for the last decade), scientists in related disciplines are increasingly fighting back against the shoddy work and orthodoxy that was foisted on them.
A small group, including several prominent physicists, are asking the American Physical Society to rescind its political statement on climate change
The group to which he’s referring is the American Physical Society, and organization of physicists. The letter from this member subset of the APS is reported at a blog he links called Bishop Hill. The critical part of the letter comes after they summarize the scandal:
What has this to do with APS? In 2007 the APS Council adopted a Statement on global warming (also reproduced at the tinyurl site mentioned above) that was based largely on the scientific work that is now revealed to have been corrupted. (The principals in this escapade have not denied what they did, but have sought to dismiss it by saying that it is normal practice among scientists. You know and we know that that is simply untrue. Physicists are not expected to cheat.)
We have asked the APS management to put the 2007 Statement on ice until the extent to which it is tainted can be determined, but that has not been done. We have also asked that the membership be consulted on this point, but that too has not been done.
None of us would use corrupted science in our own work, nor would we sign off on a thesis by a student who did so. This is not only a matter of science, it is a matter of integrity, and the integrity of the APS is now at stake.
Professional scientists know full well that what ClimateGate represents is far more than a “hacker” attack, as it’s being portrayed by the climatologists and their allies. They know that what was reported by the CRU – and relied upon for policy decisions by the UN and other governments – is far, far from “settled” “science”. It’s good to see other scientists calling it out for what it is. It’d be nice if it got some reporting that way, too.