It seems to me that the writer of the letter to Nature dwells counterproductively on what might well be called an uninteresting mistake that makes only a mild difference — and that was quickly corrected anyway. Of course the RealClimate scientists should strive for absolutely perfect accuracy. But it’s also true that they must respond in real time within the media discussion, which surely means this will not be their last technical flaw. Sometimes some scientists forget — and a few scientists never even perceive — the point when it comes to engaging society at large. The point for RealClimate, according to Nature’s editors in their “Welcome climate bloggers” editorial (23/30 December 2004), is “to change the media coverage of their discipline.” In my view that’s not something other scientists should be nitpicking. It’s something scientists in all disciplines should be emulating.
Comment by Steven T. Corneliussen — 25 Feb 2005 @ 10:42 AM
So when is the post on stratosphere cooling (12/7) going to get fixed? The “correction” (1/14) is still not right.
[Response: Done. Possibly still not to your satisfaction though….-gavin]
Comment by James B. Shearer — 25 Feb 2005 @ 5:22 PM