Good science and scientific error: A comment elevated to a post

I originally intended to post this as a comment on the discussion of "The Persecution of Michael Mann." However, although it is off topic, I feel it is important enough to warrant a post. Professor Ivor Robinson, a notable relativity researcher, told me on several occasions about a paper he had written, which contained a rather large mathematical error. Robinson was embarrassed, but acknowledged the error, which then took on a life of its own. Numerous subsequent papers, made mention of the error. Robinson's reputation was good enough to live down the mistake down, but of all his papers, the paper with the error drew the most citations.

Mistakes, errors and even deliberate data fudging are all part of the stuff of science. Karl Popper was right to place criticism at the heart of the scientific method.

It goes without saying that Michael Mann is capable of making mistakes. The scientific process involves an ongoing investigation of errors in previous science. DOUGLAS ALLCHIN has written a short essay on the scientific errors of Nobel Prize winning scientists. There is no doubt that even outstanding scientists can make huge mistakes. Allchin demonstrates that Nobel winning scientists have committed all sorts of scientific blunders, even in the work for which they were awarded the Nobel Prize.

Even great scientists are not free of error, some of them deliberate. Isaac Newton was a notorious science data fudger.

Thus it is part of normal science to detect error in the work of other scientists, and beyond that to detect deliberate data faking. Detection of errors in the work of scientists does not indicate that they are bad scientists, let alone bad people, only that they are human.

Now undoubtedly Steve McIntyre makes mistakes too, but not according his devotees, who seem to regard his every word as gospel truth. But Tim Lambert accuses McIntyre of distorting the context of quotes. For example Lambert accuses of switching the context of a Mann quote from the 1760's to the 14th century.

At least one web site, Deep Climate, now is now focusing attention on McIntyre's errors. In attempting to understand aspects of the climate debate, we need to realize that the critics of conventional climate science are probably not free of error. It is my impression that McIntyre over interpreted the "Climategate" eMails, and subsequent reviews of the affair have not sustain McIntyre's interpretation.

It is also not to Mcintyre's credit that his Wikipedia biography appears to be little more than a hagiography that sweeps criticisms under the rug.