Andrew Colclough

Surely there must have been serious men and women in the hard sciences who at some point worried that their colleagues in the global warming movement were putting at risk the credibility of everyone in science. The nature of that risk has been twofold: First, that the claims of the climate scientists might buckle beneath the weight of their breathtaking complexity. Second, that the crudeness of modern politics, once in motion, would trample the traditions and culture of science to achieve its own policy goals. With the scandal at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, both have happened at once.

I don't think most scientists appreciate what has hit them. This isn't only about the credibility of global warming. For years, global warming and its advocates have been the public face of hard science. Most people could not name three other subjects they would associate with the work of serious scientists. This was it. The public was told repeatedly that something called "the scientific community" had affirmed the science beneath this inquiry. A Nobel Prize was bestowed (on a politician).

Global warming enlisted the collective reputation of science. Because "science" said so, all the world was about to undertake a vast reordering of human behavior at almost unimaginable financial cost. Not every day does the work of scientists lead to galactic events simply called Kyoto or Copenhagen. At least not since the Manhattan Project.

What is happening at East Anglia is an epochal event. As the hard sciences—physics, biology, chemistry, electrical engineering—came to dominate intellectual life in the last century, some academics in the humanities devised the theory of postmodernism, which liberated them from their colleagues in the sciences. Postmodernism, a self-consciously "unprovable" theory, replaced formal structures with subjectivity. With the revelations of East Anglia, this slippery and variable intellectual world has crossed into the hard sciences.

[...]

The East Anglians' mistreatment of scientists who challenged global warming's claims—plotting to shut them up and shut down their ability to publish—evokes the attempt to silence Galileo. The exchanges between Penn State's Michael Mann and East Anglia CRU director Phil Jones sound like Father Firenzuola, the Commissary-General of the Inquisition.

For three centuries Galileo has symbolized dissent in science. In our time, most scientists outside this circle have kept silent as their climatologist fellows, helped by the cardinals of the press, mocked and ostracized scientists who questioned this grand theory of global doom. Even a doubter as eminent as Princeton's Freeman Dyson was dismissed as an aging crank.

Beneath this dispute is a relatively new, very postmodern environmental idea known as "the precautionary principle." As defined by one official version: "When an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically." The global-warming establishment says we know "enough" to impose new rules on the world's use of carbon fuels. The dissenters say this demotes science's traditional standards of evidence.

The Environmental Protection Agency's dramatic Endangerment Finding in April that greenhouse gas emissions qualify as an air pollutant—with implications for a vast new regulatory regime—used what the agency called a precautionary approach. The EPA admitted "varying degrees of uncertainty across many of these scientific issues." Again, this puts hard science in the new position of saying, close enough is good enough. One hopes civil engineers never build bridges under this theory.

[...]

If the new ethos is that "close-enough" science is now sufficient to achieve political goals, serious scientists should be under no illusion that politicians will press-gang them into service for future agendas. Everyone working in science, no matter their politics, has an stake in cleaning up the mess revealed by the East Anglia emails. Science is on the credibility bubble. If it pops, centuries of what we understand to be the role of science go with it.

Interesting perspective on the story. As I keep saying - as soon as generally good things, such as science, economics, religion... enter the political realm - they often become nothing more than tools of force, propaganda, and destruction.
And anyone who is claiming that the science behind AGW 'is closed' or that 'the debate is over' - is acting against science. Science, by it's very nature, cannot be closed. Those who are claiming this concept should be rejected from entering the real debate over climate science, right along with those who manipulated the data, and used bully tactics against other scientists - as in the case of the CRU emails.

Our perceptions of nature are similarly dragged back centuries so that the normal occasional occurrences of open water in summer over the North Pole, droughts, floods, hurricanes, sea-level variations, etc. are all taken as omens, portending doom due to our sinful ways (as epitomized by our carbon footprint). All of these phenomena depend on the confluence of multiple factors as well.

Consider the following example. Suppose that I leave a box on the floor, and my wife trips on it, falling against my son, who is carrying a carton of eggs, which then fall and break. Our present approach to emissions would be analogous to deciding that the best way to prevent the breakage of eggs would be to outlaw leaving boxes on the floor. The chief difference is that in the case of atmospheric CO2 and climate catastrophe, the chain of inference is longer and less plausible than in my example.

Some of the emails leaked in Climategate discuss my work. Following is a comment on that, and on something more important.

In 2007, I published a peer-reviewed paper ^[1] alleging that some important research relied upon by the IPCC (for the treatment of urbanization effects) was fraudulent. The emails show that Tom Wigley — one of the most oft-cited climatologists and an extreme warming advocate — thought my paper was valid ^[2]. They also show that Phil Jones, the head of the Climatic Research Unit, tried to convince the journal editor not to publish my paper.

After my paper was published, the State University of New York — where the research discussed in my paper was conducted — carried out an investigation. During the investigation, I was not interviewed — contrary to the university’s policies, federal regulations, and natural justice. I was allowed to comment on the report of the investigation, before the report’s release.

But I was not allowed to see the report. Truly Kafkaesque.

The report apparently concluded that there was no fraud. The leaked files contain the defense used against my allegation, a defense obviously and strongly contradicted by the documentary record. It is no surprise then that the university still refuses to release the report. (More details on all of this — including source documents — are on my site ^[3].)

My paper demonstrates that by 2001, Jones knew there were severe problems with the urbanization research. Yet Jones continued to rely on that research in his work, including in his work for the latest report of the IPCC.

...Bullying scientists who tried to get their work peer-reviewed, because they didn't "agree with the consensus."

Science indeed.

Narrator

Our very planet depends on them. Yet they remain nature's most elusive scientific species, inhabiting some of the world's most delicate and daunting academic environments. But thanks to new breakthroughs in high speed cameras and email files, metascientists are finally beginning to understand their mysterious behaviors and complex social interactions. Tonight on Iowahawk Geographic: step inside the Secret Life of the Climate Researchers.

French Horn Fanfare Theme

Fast-cut montage of walrus mating with polar bear, astronomer peering through telescope into neighbor's window, cheetahs chasing penguins on the Serengeti, scientists filling out NSF grant proposals

Dah dat dat DAAAH dat, dah daht duh dah dee-dah dee dah-dah!

Narrator

This is the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom, home of one of the largest nesting populations of climate scientists in Europe.

Gentle ant's-eye scene of idyllic campus lawn, strewn about with drunken mating undergraduates

Each year it attracts magnificent migratory flocks of graduate students, adjuncts and visiting faculty from across the northern hemisphere.

Shots of jumbo jets landing at Heathrow; herds of climate researchers busily milling at Duty Free shops, retrieving baggage, phoning for prearranged limo service

Within minutes of arriving on campus, the migratory researchers approach the entrance of the Climate Research Unit and perform the secret credential dance, fiercely displaying their prominent curriculum vitae. This signals to the security drone that they can be trusted with the sacred electronic lanyard badge that will grant them entrance to the hive's inner sanctum.  

During the upcoming research season, this hive alone will produce over 6 million metric tons of grant-sustaining climate data guano, but until recently little was known about the elusive genus of homo scientifica living inside. Where do they come from? What strange force draws them here year after year? In order to unravel the mystery, Iowahawk Geographic documentary filmmaker David Burge undertook a painstaking one-week project to finally capture the climate researchers in their native habitat.

In this exclusive footage, Burge warily approaches the hive's security drone, disguising himself as smelly graduate student. Burge has theorized that as a member of the lowest stratum in the hive's social system, the drone likely enjoys partying. He reaches into his backpack and offers the drone a pint of Guinness and a small bag of weed in exchange for the hive's internal security tapes and email files. Success.

The never-before seen security tapes obtained by Burge provide a rare glimpse into the inner working of the climate research hive and its amazing guano production. In this sequence, we see one group of researchers entering the hive each carrying a datum they have retrieved from a distant climate measuring station. This is the cause of much excitement among their colleagues, who buzz around in a grant-writing frenzy.

Infrared heat map film of highly agitated researchers

But there's a problem: as the worker researchers attempt to store each raw datum into the neat honeycomb hockey stick structure provided by the hive's Alpha Grantwriter, they discover that few will fit. The infrared shows them growing cool with fear. This signals the climate researcher's instinctive behavior to begin viciously beating, rolling and normalizing the data into submission. According to Dr. Nigel V.H. Oldham, professor emeritus at Oxford University's Centre for Metascience, this violent data dance is what makes climate researchers unique among breeds of scientists.

Professor Nigel V.H. Oldham

Like other species in the order homo scientifica, the climate researcher gathers and organizes data to lure grant money to the hive. In contrast to those other species, however, the climate researcher has evolved a set of complex violent behaviors to insure any data leaving the hive is perfectly adapted to nature's most lucrative and sweetest grants. It really is a marvel of natural selection, and explains why the climate researcher continues to thrive in any kind of weather condition....

This piece is referring to the unfolding ClimateGate scandal. If you haven't heard about it yet, don't be surprised. Most media outlets talk about Anthropogenic (man-created) Global Warming (AGW) as if it is already established indisputable scientific fact.

I'm mostly skeptical of claims like this, not because I am a scientist, but because anytime "science" blends with politics - it inevitably becomes ideological (if you don't agree, you are bad), rather than scientific (if you don't agree, that's good. Curiosity about why things are the way they are, is the foundation of science). The fact that Al Gore is the chief proponent of AGW, should be a sign, not to just write off his opinion, but to at least approach the topic with a measure of skepticism. (Political alignment is irrelevant. If Al Gore were substituted with George W. Bush or Dick Cheney, it wouldn't make AGW one bit more or less true, or scientific.) Also, red flags seem especially appropriate whenever any 'science' a) claims to be "closed," or that the "debate is over," (For example - here's the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change Report which argues the opposite) or b) predicts doom and gloom on an apocalyptic scale... "unless..."

And I can't stress this point enough: Whether or not you agree that man is causing detrimental climate change is not the issue. The issue is that AGW has entered the political body and there is already legislation (Cap and Trade) on it being written which will cause drastic changes to our economy. And make no mistake - additional fees or taxes on companies to regulate their carbon emissions WILL have drastic effects. Most notably with regard to jobs, and the poor. Rising costs of energy and products, due to climate legislation will take a huge toll on people who are already hardest hit by lack of jobs and/or poverty.

If we are going to pass legislation in regard to AGW - we had better be absolutely certain that we know:

1. Beyond a reasonable doubt - AGW is a Fact,
2. How much the legislation will cost, 
3. Who will pay for it?, and most importantly
4. Will the legislation address the problem?

If AGW is just speculation - why would we need legislation? 

If the legislation will cost everyone a fortune (Important: remember the Seen vs. the Unseen), not just in jobs and rising costs, but also in restricting personal liberty - there must exist no possible alternative.

If the proposed political action will not fix the problem - but will instead dramatically damage the poor and unemployed - then it is an unscientific and irrational policy, and must be rejected.

Remember, once a law is passed to tax businesses or people for their carbon emissions - it is highly improbably that it will ever be repealed even if the 'scientific claims' on which it is based are disproven in the future. Governments do not readily give up taxes.

With that in mind, here's ClimateGate in a nutshell

Basically - some hackers got their hands on a ton of emails between a notable group of climate scientists who are leading the charge for the idea that man is causing climate change through carbon emissions (AGW). The emails reveal many disturbing things, from attempts to manipulate the data to fit their hypothesis, unlawful destruction (hiding) of data contrary to their position, and even spite against other scientists who disagree with their position.

Obviously - if this is true - then it is a big deal given everything we just discussed.

Here are some articles to get you started:

• Hadley CRU hacked with release of hundreds of docs and emails
• In the trenches on climate change, hostility among foes - washingtonpost.com
• Global WarmingGate: What Does It Mean?
• Hacked E-Mails Heat Up Global Warming Dispute  -A.P.
• The Alarmists Do "Science": A Case Study
• Three Things You Absolutely Must Know About Climategate