In the modern world of data-driven science, we believe that there is a need to emphasize data sharing as a core ethic of science and a need to develop a sustained data infrastructure supporting scientific research and applications. In that light, we urge you to consider the following points:

- Data must be freely and openly accessible, and should be made available as soon as practicable. Research results should not be published unless the associated data are readily available, ideally as part of the paper itself. This is an area where AGU, as a publisher, can show leadership in both policy and technology.

- Free and open access should explicitly recognize the need for equitable access to research communities across the globe. This could impact where data are stored, in what form, and the technologies used to serve those data.

- When data are used in a publication they should be formally cited, crediting both the data author (provider) and the data publisher. If data cannot be cited and accessed, the result should not be publishable in the scientific literature. This would require some modification of AGU’s current data citation policy (http://www.agu.org/pubs/data_policy.html). Further methods need to be developed and employed to ensure consistent and continual data reference and access.

- Data quality is increasingly important, especially in interdisciplinary research. Data providers cannot anticipate every use of their data and cannot be solely responsible for data quality. On the other hand data users cannot always be expected to fully determine the quality of data outside their field. The diverse data applications in interdisciplinary science demand greater levels of data description, characterization of uncertainty, and understanding of provider assumptions and metaphors. Formal robust semantic procedures may be helpful. New data verification methods, including the peer review of data should be explored.

- In developing the data infrastructure of the future, we will increasingly rely on robust and open standards. Specific standards should not be prescribed, but we encourage the use of relevant standards in preserving, managing and exchanging data and metadata.

- Finally, we must look to the past as well as the future. It is not enough to ensure that data being produced today are archived and available. There is also a need to identify, prioritize, prepare, and preserve historical data at risk.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment,

Mark A Parsons, on behalf of the AGU Information Technology Committee.

I’m not familiar with the history of this statement, and don’t wish to open a can of worms. But in the Museum community, we need all the help we can get.

This is particularly true of planetary and Earth scientists, whose unquestioning acceptance of old ideas and all their mathematical models have resulted in the complete misunderstanding of every planet in the solar system. NASA’s data is all good, but its interpretation is flawed to an unimaginable degree because no competing interpretations are published.

I have repeatedly submitted papers to rectify this situation over the last decade only to be rejected by the ‘priests’ of the current dogma. These papers have been available on my website for years, but are unknown because of your tunnel vision. These scientists are like a herd of sheep, following the gradualism of the geologists who became the first planetary scientists and the likes of Carl Sagan.

You have done a great disservice to science, and I have no doubt will continue to do so. I am completely willing to allow my ideas to compete because I know they are correct. How much longer will all these intelligent scientists waste their time and the resources of our country jousting with windmills. AGU and the other ’scientific’ journals are responsible for this waste.

John Ackerman
firmament-chaos.com

“Scientists’ understanding of the fundamental processes
responsible for global change has greatly improved during
the last decade, including better representation of carbon,
water, and other biogeochemical cycles in climate models.
Yet model projections of future global warming vary,
because of differing estimates of population growth, economic
activity, greenhouse gas emission rates, changes in atmospheric
particulate concentrations and their effects, and also because
of uncertainties in climate models.”

My comment supposes that the position statement is addressed to an informed public who have only a small percentage of scientists in their number. Does the Council agree that this is their intended audience?

Given this audience, there are three points to my comments.

(1) The first of the two sentences says “…understanding has greatly improved in the last decade”. The ‘last decade’ means the calendar years 1994 - 2003. Since then, four years have passed, so there is not now a new decade to compare with the earlier. It requires care to avoid the bias of the present toward the most recent activity, absent a detailed historical evaluation of progress in the last four years, compared to the benchmark decade referenced in the existing position statement. How will these added four years be mentioned?

(2) Both sentences under discussion contain lists of variables. In the first sentence, there are three: “representation[s] of carbon,
water, and other biogeochemical cycles in climate models.” A typical member of the intended audience would believe that the variables are ranked in order of decreasing importance, lacking any statement to the contrary. Is that true? There should be a reason for the order, and it should be stated.

In the second sentence, there is a list of five variables causing differences in model projections. They are, in the order given:

“population growth, economic activity, greenhouse emission rates, changes in atmospheric particulate concentrations and their effects, and also because of uncertainties in climate models.” The same typical member of the audience will assume a ranking, and the most reasonable assumption would be the same as in the last sentence:

most important cause of differences first, least important last. But the actual ranking in this second sentence seems to be in reverse order of that in the first sentence. That is, the variables appear in order of increasing importance in causing model projections to vary. The given order in the second sentence starts with the best determined (population estimates for the end of the present century) and ends with the most problematic (uncertainties in climate models). The apparent reversal in order, and the use of the phrase “and also because of uncertainties”, in context makes it appear as though the model uncertainties are a trivial afterthought.

(3) Finally, the typical member of the intended audience would assume that the variables listed are, in scientific terms, independent variables (the typical member of the intended audience would think of it as ‘no double-counting’). In the first of the two sentences, are carbon, water, and biogeochemical cycles independent variables? In the second of the two sentences, to what extent are population growth, economic activity, greenhouse gas emission rates, particulate concentrations, and model uncertainty independent variables?

(1) In the sentence “Scientific theories … are hypotheses that have survived extensive testing and repeated verification.” it makes no sense to say “survived … repeated verification”. It should be: “survived … repeated attempts of falsification” or “survived extensive tests and have been repeatedly verified”, or so.

(2) Education must be broader than teaching science, because – I believe – life is more than intellect. It is important to discuss and teach the essence of humanity which includes or involves science but also spirituality, faith and responsibility. Science seeks the “truth” (as already expressed in the second paragraph of the AGU Satatement). It is always limited or “preliminary” in its insights. Human rationality is limited, complemented by faith (not exactly the same as “belief”). Indeed, science as a human endeavor is somehow founded in faith, and so is our responsibility for a sustainable progress on earth. It should be emphasized that science and faith are not contradictory to each other but rather “orthogonal” coordinates of humanity.

Scientific theories cannot answer existential questions. Our very existence is outside science because we cannot test it by experiment. Is the conflict between science and religion a real or absolute one, or is it only apparent? Is it a dichotomy? It will depend on our understanding of science and religion. Absolute conflict or contradiction can be defined by: if A is true, B is false and vice versa, for example, either religion is true and science is false or science is true and religion is false. A dichotomy is any splitting of a whole into exactly two non-overlapping parts, separate views or opposed as white and not white. If A, then not B or vice versa, but saying nothing about the existence or truth of A or B, only an apparent contradiction between A and B. A and B can be true but as exclusive sides or aspects of an object: life is evolving and can be gratefully accepted as a gift.

The issue is not to turn from one to another “absolute certainty” or from creationist preachers to fallible scientists. The task is not to indoctrinate people about the “truth” of evolution, but to teach them about the nature of scientific theories and also their limitations. I believe it is important in the science-religion debate to advocate a broad and balanced education. I agree with the last paragraph of the current Statement (that creationism or ID must not be taught as science, but I would add a few words about the nature of science and the nature of religion.

I, too, am a theist and would not disagree with anything Ashworth says in his last paragraph. I would also agree that scientific materialism has led some to conclude that there is no need for a concept of God, however, I would say that this is a false and an unnecessary conclusion.

To paraphrase what I said in my Eos Forum article (4 July 2006), we must avoid believing the dual fallacy that if we can explain something, then there is no involvement by God, and if we cannot explain something, then this must be the supernatural work of God. Science and spirituality are not mutually exclusive. We must remember that science explains the how, not the why, of things.

I wonder if something along these lines should be included in the AGU statement. It seems that by so doing, perhaps this would be a step in the direction of reconciling this unfortunate misconception that has led to so much unnecessary controversy and misunderstanding.

I also agree that “Intelligent Design” should be specifically mentioned, as it ultimately rests on a “god of the gaps” kind of argument — that is, requiring supernational intervention where science leaves off — and is just a sophisticated version of creationism.

I would be happy to continue to provide comments and editorial assistance to the committee in drafting an updated version of this position statement.

My feeling is that it was a mistake of the Editor…however, when this happens, the author should inform the Editor about this “conflict of interest”.

Although more scientists in the past believed in God, the recent emphasis on materialism has had its affect on the scientific community. The thrust of science today is to believe only in that, which can be calculated, measured, or experienced with the five senses. If these criteria are not met, it is not real. It is completely illogical that a scientist, a person who observes and analyzes the nature of things, could say that he or she does not believe in a Creator. Isn’t is obvious that the universe and everything in it was created. What logic could lead one to conclude that non-intelligence was capable of creating intelligence?

Science itself does not back up the theory of evolution. In mathematics, if a probability of occurrence is less than 1 x 10-50, it is impossible for the event to ever occur. The probability of a one-cell organism forming by accident is orders of magnitude less likely; it is calculated to be 1 x 10-78,000. Further, Huxley determined that the probability for a horse to accidentally appear is 1 x 10-3,000,000. With analyses like these by many well known mathematicians, one wonders how a scientist could ever embrace evolution, and yet strangely they do.

From my analysis of life I have found the following. There is One Consciousness (God) of which you, I and the rest of creation are apart. We exist within this One Consciousness as our dreams at night exist within us. We do not carry the Consciousness around with us, it is everywhere we go like the air we breath. The One Consciousness created because (He/She) was lonely and we are each wired to an allotted portion of this One All Knowing Consciousness. Because in essence we are one, those revered as Godmen have told us to love our neighbors as ourselves and be compassionate. Krishna was once asked who is the highest? His response,”He who suffers the bliss and sorrow of every living creature, taking each bliss and sorry as his own, him I call the highest!” Philosophy and science fit together like a hand and glove, both in their purest forms are a search for Truth. God is Truth, two paths - the same destination.