Scientific integrity involves the measurement and analysis of data in an independent manner. That means free of influence whether financial, political, religious or to do with personal gain or prejudice.
Scientists have a responsibility to ensure the highest standards of integrity, not just for themselves and their subordinates, but for their colleagues. Scientific integrity is meaningless and worthless if it becomes optional.
Often, where science is difficult to understand by laymen and by politicians, scientific integrity is the foundation for credibility.
Climate science seems to have one group claiming total confidence in the models. Another less formal group, branded as deniers, claims that the models are flawed. The majority of scientists, many of whom have the ability to form judgements about some or all of the climate work seem to be silent.
The silent majority seems to bolster the acceptance of the science by authority and by government. “The science is settled, there is a strong consensus.”
Now, we know that that science is not proven by consensus, but it is true that public thinking is swayed by it. This is where the politics of the matter begin to enter the picture. Sound bites and cherry picking of data and statements go hand in hand with consensus science and are just as misleading. What has happened to integrity?
There are questions relating to the quality of data, natural variability, variables that are not understood or difficult to quantify, uncertainty, errors, unknowns and countless other factors that may reduce confidence in the results. If these are not made clear or excluded from the debate, then again the silent majority are guilty of turning a blind eye. Integrity requires that scientists address these issues.
If observation continues to shift the science in the favour of the deniers, climate science may at some point face a crisis of integrity and credibility and the silent majority will be in it up to their unseeing eyes.