Imagine an engineer who normally comes to work in jeans and a t-shirt. One day the boss says "I want you to present your product tomorrow. Here's the address." So the engineer cobbles together a demo, dresses up in his kakhis and a polo shirt, and shows up to present... at a nationally-televised, black-tie event. That's analagous to the situation in which climate scientists now find themselves.

For the most part, climate scientists are doing normal science, and thinking in terms of presenting their work to other scientists. But their work has become the centerpiece for huge global initiatives with large economic, environmental, and political impacts. This means their results, methods, and even personalities are being subject to an unusual degree of criticism (some valid, some not.)

Given the situation, it's absolutely vital for climate scientists to be as forthcoming as possible -- engaging critics, admitting mistakes, and opening up data (as in the article's subtitle.) It's absolutely vital for climate scientists to do a better job of explaining than they've done thus far, and to be very clear about what's known to what level of certainty based on what evidence.

(IMO, it's also absolutely vital for scientists, rather than politically polarized figures like Al Gore, to do the explaining.)

Excellently put! Especially the last sentence.

"“We have to do a better job of explaining that there is always more to learn, always uncertainties to be addressed,” said John P. Holdren, an environmental scientist and the White House science adviser. “But we also need to remind people that the occasions where a large consensus is overturned by a scientific heretic are very, very rare.”"

That is a... curious word choice for the White House science adviser.

Could you explain what you mean? I don't understand your subtext.

I think he means the use of the word heretic.

Heretic: anyone who does not conform to an established attitude, doctrine, or principle.

The word plays on lots of negative connotations (when actually there is no reason that it is bad to be a Heretic). Initially it seems a weird choice of word: basically "hey, if your not with us your against us. Oh and were going to burn you out". On the other hand I think it's one used in science history books quite a lot (still in a negative context though) so perhaps it is because the guy is a scientist and that's how non-conformists are considered.

Or then again maybe it is just a political choice of words attempting to undermine anyone that does pick at the data.

(as an aside the guy is wrong - some of the biggest scientific advances come from "heretics" making big and controversial discoveries)

Science can't have "heretics". Science is about theories and the attempts to break or validate those with data gathered from controlled experiments.

Heresy applies to religions. By using the word the way he does, he implicitly acknowledges that climate science is a faith-based rather than fact-based system. Which incidentally is a central point of criticism for many sceptics.

Is there a non-editorial reason that a new title had to be submitted for this article? The original title:

"Scientists Taking Steps to Defend Work on Climate"

is more succinct, and carries a different connotation than the one invented by retro:

"Climate scientists beginning to admit mistakes and open up their data."

In case anyone questions why the HN title is different from the NYT title, I adapted it from the subhead which reads as follows: "Grudgingly, many climate scientists are beginning to engage critics, admit mistakes and open up their data."

Definitely a good thing if they start opening up more and start engaging with skeptics in debates instead of just appealing to authority.

But the true reason no one will believe their claims till it's too late is that they have no good solutions other than pushing us to the dark ages in terms of energy consumption.

IMO climate scientists should also start thinking about solutions to the climate problem (even if its not exactly their field). We could definitely use more people thinking about solutions rather than just describing the problem or its extent.

> But the true reason no one will believe their claims till it's too late is that they have no good solutions other than pushing us to the dark ages in terms of energy consumption.

That may be true of some environmentalists, but certainly not all. For instance, a much greater number now support building new nuclear plants, as a lesser evil when compared to oil and coal.

My opinion is that nuclear is a non-starter due to the weight of regulations surrounding it and its capital intensive nature. We need to see radical game-changers which cannot happen in such an environment.

The recent news on the Bloom boxes has me quite hopeful however.

The Bloom boxes are nothing more than more efficient natural gas powered generators. If anyone truly believed that anthropogenic CO2 will cause catastrophic climate change in the 21st century they would not be looking toward Bloom boxes as a meaningful solution to that problem.

Though, perhaps they may be looking toward Bloom boxes as an effective way to reduce carbon emissions. Cutting emissions per kW in half is nothing to shake a stick at.

IMO you should read more widely about solutions to the climate problem. There are plenty out there for energy production: solar, geothermal and tidal, as well as measures like energy efficiency or soil improvement, but apparently little political will to see anything actually done, or to put significant amounts of investment in.