As a scientist, you should be objective at all times and simply present the results as they are. I would never advise anyone to put their own 'spin' on the results of a dataset in the hope of swaying opinion in one direction or another. Impartiality is a cornerstone of good scientific practice and must remain so, especially in a field as controversial as climate science. Part of the reason why climate scientists are losing credibility is because some have crossed the line of impartiality.

This is a good question. I think that we have to inform but in the correct way.

I.e. this report: http://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/trends-in-global-co2-emissions-2013-report

has been transformed in news by BBC ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24742770 ) and by a italian blog called buonentoizie (goodnews http://www.buonenotizie.it/ambiente/2013/11/05/rallenta-il-tasso-incremento-co2/ )

What we should do?

We need to inform that strategies are giving some result, but in our reports, abstract and titles we need to be careful and give complete the information correctly. Sometimes we forget some basic communication strategies I our research reports and articles. I.e. I appreciate the synthesis for policymaker of IPCC reports, and the resume of all (well) known issues of the past.

We need to inform that there are some positive trends on the strategies we are following. Positive feedback is important to say: “we are in the right way, we can slow the run to the 'non return edge' but there are still a lot to do”

I like this : http://learningfundamentals.com.au/resources/#lightbox/0/

http://learningfundamentals.com.au/resources/#lightbox/0/

Everything has two sides, both positive and negative. I suggest that we should consider about the trend line of the results, that the results close to the possitive or negative. If the result is possitive, give reasons and evidences to that. And does it 100% confirm that there is no negative.

This is just from my thought, hope this will help you :).

As a scientist, you should be objective at all times and simply present the results as they are. I would never advise anyone to put their own 'spin' on the results of a dataset in the hope of swaying opinion in one direction or another. Impartiality is a cornerstone of good scientific practice and must remain so, especially in a field as controversial as climate science. Part of the reason why climate scientists are losing credibility is because some have crossed the line of impartiality.

I guess if there are studies that are based on actual environmental measurements the data should be precisely published and no twitching should be done to suit the theories or model. This honest reporting is a basic obligation each scientist has. Now comes the issue of interpretation in this a very conservative approach should be adopted, rather than the sweeping theories based on very limited data both in space and time.

I agree with the above statements that as scientists we should remain objective. And indeed some may have crossed the line of "partisanship". However, we also need to acknowledge that things are not always black and white. We now perform scientific research (related to climate change in particular) under a new paradigm, which is "politicized" science. A statement such as "warming of the climate system is unequivocal", although based on solid science supported by observations, is perceived as a "political" and hence partisan statement within certain circles. Welcome to the grey zones of fact vs. perception vs. political positioning. ;-)

I agree with John and Frederik, you need to always be honest when reporting... no matter what the results were and who you support or not in the political life.

Agree

Thanks everyone, really interesting and important points. I absolutely agree that we must provide balanced and unbiased arguments thus remaining objective (we should be doing this anyway!). But politicians often want things in black in white which can make this difficult. I guess all we can do is provide them with the information from the perspective of the whole story (thus remaining objective) and then it is up to the politicians to use the information as best as they can. Perhaps a common language between these fields requires more focus in order to help transfer this information across.

Coleen I guess this is what teh scientist have to learn most of these environmental datasets are not sufficient to use a boolean logic. They are always comparative, variable and often inconclusive. So there is little change that ablack and white perspective can be adopted. We can use the terms slightly better than previous observations or otherwise, shows a positive trend or otherwise, but cant support either theory just for the sake of politicians.

I believe that publishing any results should be the RESULTS without being politically correct about it - if these are the results so be it!!!

I see most scientist discussing the issue are on same page. We don't believe in false reporting, but it becomes a problem when theories are formed essentially because of individual inclination towards a hypotheses but still datasets are inconclusive.

Well, being a researcher - you need to obtain ethics approval, and when you reach that stage of knowledge and understanding that whatever you will come up with will affect others - you need to think beyond your own interest or the interest of that who funded your research, and look at the overall community and society ...

True Theodora.

I think this is a really important question to consider and it's great to see you are having a debate. It would be really interesting to know what the general consensus from the debate is!

I tried writing a fuller comment but it got too long and waffly, but my opinions were greatly informed from this book, which is entirely on this topic (it's not too big and very readable!):

http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/politics-international-relations/comparative-politics/honest-broker-making-sense-science-policy-and-politics

I guess the short answer for me is that we should always report findings accurately and fully, otherwise that undermines the process of science. However there are areas that are very policy sensitive, like climate science. Researchers in these areas should also have a responsibility to actively engage and communicate with policy makers to provide their results in context.

Jamie agree but the stand should be same true reporting should be the basis and the observations should not be motivated to support or debunk a theory unless it is totally proved. Climate change is specifically a topic where many of the local evidences are not inline with the widely acceptable theories, it becomes a issue.

Yes, I totally agree with Kenneth. There is difficulty interpreting the results for the public to understand. All research findings need to be presented in an objective and clear manner, especially to a public which often has little science background.

This is precisely the point I was trying to make Kenneth you are very right. Most of these climate change hypothesis and based on scanty and patchy data which has been selectively used to support the popular point of view.

97% of scientists agree that climate change is happening and mounting evidence indicates that it is happening more abruptly than previously thought.

Joy most of the people agree with this but hard evidences are few and patchy.

There is a lot of research literature supporting the fact that climate change is happening due to increased carbon dioxide levels. Carbon dioxide levels have increased from 280 ppmv during pre-industrialization period to over 400 ppmv now, which is contributing to global warming. Direct evidence is the glaciers melting in most of the high altitude regions of the world.

Kenneth you are very right. I have a temperature dataset for Kuwait which shows so much variation on decalal scale that it cannot be considered as warming.

The long-term trend overwhelms any short-term variations.

IPCC conclusions on temperature:

1. Globally averaged land and ocean surface temperature shows a

warming of 0.85 ºC [90% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.06ºC] from 1880

to 2012.

2. In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012 was likely the warmest

30-year period of the last 1400 years.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2013. Climate Change

2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to

the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Joy these trends from 1880 to 2012 Are these based on continuous observation. This is not supported by continental temperature data over United States. Kenneth has given an exhaustive details on this.

I accept that the temperatures have declined Kenneth but you should also mention the seasonal changes. Also the temperatures seem to be dropping in few countries while majority have reported increase in temperatures: a steady specifically in summers. Un-seasonal rainfall, cyclones have been reported. So how does one explain the greenhouse effect? Please help me understand this. Saif Uddin, you have already mentioned ' data from USA" . what about other countries?

Kenneth I have seen a continous fluctuation in continental air temperatures over Kuwait since 1960 and no way I can conclude that there is a rise.

Given the topic of the original question about representing data and in response to the recent posts, I'm not sure that there being no change in the US continental annual average temperatures between 1953/4 and 1986/7 is really an exhaustive treatment of the data, or even a good representation of the data.

This is a trend essentially based on two end points, ignoring the ~31 years of data in between. A much more reliable method would be to fit a least squares linear trend through all the data. Also, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were rising during, before, and after this period so, for example, we should also ask what are the trends for 1943-1976 or 1963-1996? If the same trends were calculated from each consecutive year in the dataset, and the majority are near zero, then that original statement would have more validity. Unfortunately I couldn't find the U.S. data easily online otherwise I would attach a figure doing this!

I intend the comment to only concern the basis for that statement, not about the relation to CO2 emissions, local vs. global climate variability or the ethical arguments of who is responsible, although they are interesting discussions in their own right!

Kenneth, I have been around a while and have observed the changes in CO2 levels caused by human expansion and unsustainable use of resources on this planet. It was brought to my attention back in the 1980s when I was a grad student. The half - life of CO2 is quite long (can't remember the amount), so what we (industrialized countries and those wishing to be industrialized) have pumped into the atmosphere will be around a while, no matter what kind of atmospheric mitigation is attempted. I have NOT missed the point!

"Nothing happened in the intervening years." I guess if you discount the Clean Air Act and the concomitant decrease in sulfate aerosol emission, then yeah, nothing happened:

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/emission.jpg

However, if you take that decrease into account, and understand the role SO4= has on albedo, and how albedo factors into regional effects on global mean temperature, then maybe you can figure out that there might be reasons why global CO2 concentrations and regional surface temperatures might not be tightly correlated over short timescales, especially from 1950 to the end of the 1980's.

In general, results that are at odds with accepted theories for how systems work should be published, provided that obvious errors in data collection/analysis or theoretical development have not been identified via rigorous peer review. However, in the case of climate science, nearly all of the egregiously incorrect papers published in the last several decades have been those that contain "negative results" discussed by Towe (and nearly all of the documented cases of scientific misconduct (plagarism, falsification of results, obvious misinterpretation of data or misapplication of known theoretical principles) in the area of climate science have been committed by climate skeptics publishing "negative results"). The point being it is hard to identify good science that refutes the idea that CO2 is critical in terms of the global radiative balance, and that what we call "climate" is exquisitely sensitive to changes in the global radiative balance.

I for one would welcome the finding that anthropogenic CO2 is not a huge issue and if it were demonstrated that increasing levels of CO2 in fact did not cause climate change that would be cause for great celebration. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the science that would indicate that complacency and smug self-satisfaction are the correct course of action.

I agree with Dr. Asher. Very good points.

Part of the problem regarding so-called negative and positive climate change results is not the results themselves but the interpretation placed upon them. For example, it is incontrovertible that Arctic warming has recently taken place - but the real question is, why is it taking place? The standard, almost knee-jerk assumption, is that it is part of an overall global warming process, but there is good evidence that Arctic melting/freezing occurs in an approximately 70-year cycle for which there is no need to ascribe an overall global warming cause.

Kenneth ... thank you for your reference to 'The Changing Arctic' article

http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf

which clearly indicates that warming was taking place in the Arctic 90 years ago. Some 70 years ago the St Roch, a 300-ton wooden schooner operated by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, sailed the Northwest Passage in both direction and conducted general operation in Arctic waters for several years. Since the St Roch had no ice-breaking capabilities, it can be assumed that there was open water in the Arctic at that time. Then, as we know, the Arctic froze up again from about 1960 to 1990, and began to unfreeze in the 1990's.

All of this suggests that the Arctic undergoes a freeze/thaw cycle of approximately 70 years, and that we are currently at the high-temperature peak of that cycle. Attempts to portray the current Arctic situation as evidence for global warming strike me as disingenuous, to say the least.

Incidentally, Antarctic ice cover reached its highest level in 2013 since records began in 1979. Although there is little direct evidence for it, it would be a reasonable supposition that the Antarctic undergoes the same 70-year cycle, but in anti-phase to the Arctic cycle.