Ou seja, mesmo ainda de o tão propalado peer review ter funcionado(?), já se sabe que certas conclusões irão fazer parte do próximo relatório do IPCC! O topete desta gente! E suspeito que o timing com que tudo isto sucede não é com certeza alheio à data da decisão a que esta notícia respeita.
É pois altura de voltar a invocar as questões epistemológicas essenciais da ciência [grato ao António Costa Amaral pela indicação da referência] que não da ideologia ou de qualquer igreja:
«[...] Scientific theories are never denied or believed, they are only corroborated or falsified. Scientific knowledge, by its very nature, is provisional and subject to revision. The provisional nature of scientific knowledge is a necessary consequence of the epistemological basis of science. Science is based on observation. We never have all the data. As our body of data grows, our theories and ideas must necessarily evolve. Anyone who thinks scientific knowledge is final and complete must necessarily endorse as a corollary the absurd proposition that the process of history has stopped.
A scientific theory cannot be "denied." Only a belief can be denied. The person who uses the word "denier" thus reveals that they hold global warming as a belief, not a scientific theory. Beliefs are the basis of revealed religion. Revelations cannot be corroborated or studied in the laboratory, so religions are based on dogmatic beliefs conservatively held. Religions tend to be closed systems of belief that reject criticism. But the sciences are open systems of knowledge that welcome criticism. I'm a scientist, and therefore I must happily confess to being a denier.»