Select your localized edition:

Close ×

More Ways to Connect

Discover one of our 28 local entrepreneurial communities »

Be the first to know as we launch in new countries and markets around the globe.

Interested in bringing MIT Technology Review to your local market?

MIT Technology ReviewMIT Technology Review - logo

 

Unsupported browser: Your browser does not meet modern web standards. See how it scores »

{ action.text }

There were some remarkable letters sent last Thursday by Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) and Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY) of the Committee on Energy and Commerce that raise questions about the intimidation of scientists who have found the twentieth century to be anomalously warm. The letters are directed to three climate scientists and two administrators; especially the letters to the scientists (Michael Mann, Malcolm Hughes, and Raymond Bradley) call for information that is either already widely available or not germaine to questions of science. Keying off a 2/14/05 Wall Street Journal article that highlighted the work of climate contrarians Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, the letters ask for curriculum vitae, sources of funding, funding agreements, locations to data archives and other lengthy questions about data existence, data requests, explanations of “alleged errors” raised by McIntyre and McKitrick, and detailed questions about their science. More intimidating, it seems to me, is that the scientists are asked to explain their roles in the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), the leading body behind the consensus view of anthropogenic climate change.

Some of these requests are so detailed as to be nearly impossible to fulfill (for example, “provide the location of all data archives relating to each published study for which you were an author or co-author”).

This is unprecedented, as far as I know, and has the air of a scientific witch-hunt. This is at a time when the consensus view of manmade global warming is reaching an all-time high–even the U.S. Senate has expressed its sense that something needs to be done. It’s a story, I think, that bears close watching.

0 comments about this story. Start the discussion »

Reprints and Permissions | Send feedback to the editor

From the Archives

Close

Introducing MIT Technology Review Insider.

Already a Magazine subscriber?

You're automatically an Insider. It's easy to activate or upgrade your account.

Activate Your Account

Become an Insider

It's the new way to subscribe. Get even more of the tech news, research, and discoveries you crave.

Sign Up

Learn More

Find out why MIT Technology Review Insider is for you and explore your options.

Show Me