by John P. Costella | January 18, 2010
From SPPI
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY
Why Climategate is so distressing to scientists
by John P. Costella | December 10, 2009
The most difficult thing for a scientist in the era of Climategate is trying to explain to family and friends why it is so distressing to scientists. Most people don’t know how science really works: there are no popular television shows, movies, or books that really depict the everyday lives of real scientists; it just isn’t exciting enough. I’m not talking here about the major discoveries of science—which are well-described in documentaries, popular science series, and magazines—but rather how the process of science (often called the “scientific method”) actually works.
The best analogy that I have been able to come up with, in recent weeks, is the criminal justice system—which is (rightly or wrongly) abundantly depicted in the popular media. Everyone knows what happens if police obtain evidence by illegal means: the evidence is ruled inadmissible; and, if a case rests on that tainted evidence, it is thrown out of court. The justice system is not saying that the accused is necessarily innocent; rather, that determining the truth is impossible if evidence is not protected from tampering or fabrication.
The same is true in science: scientists assume that the rules of the scientific method have been followed, at least in any discipline that publishes its results for public consumption. It is that trust in the process that allows me, for example, to believe that the human genome has been mapped—despite my knowing nothing about that field of science at all. That same trust has allowed scientists at large to similarly believe in the results of climate science.
Until now.
So what are the “rules” of the scientific method? Actually, they are not all that different from those of the justice system. Just as it is a fundamental right of every affected party to be heard and fairly considered by the court, it is of crucial importance to science that all points of view be given a chance to be heard, and fairly debated. But, of course, it would be impossible to allow an “open slather” type of arrangement, like discussion forums on the Internet; so how do we admit all points of view, without descending into anarchy?
This question touches on something of a dark secret within science one which most scientists, through the need for self-preservation, are scared to admit: most disciplines of science are, to a greater or lesser extent, controlled by fashions, biases, and dogma. Why is this so? Because the mechanism by which scientific debate has been “regulated” to avoid anarchy—at least since the second half of the twentieth century—has been the “peer review” process. The career of any professional scientist lives or dies on their success in achieving publication of their papers in “peer-reviewed” journals. So what, exactly, does “peer-reviewed” mean? Simply that other professional scientists in that discipline must agree that the paper is worthy of publication. And what is the criterion that determines who these “professional scientists” should be? Their success in achieving publication of their papers in peer-reviewed journals! Catch-22.
It may seem, on the surface, that this circular process is fundamentally flawed; but, borrowing the words of Winston Churchill, it is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried. Science is not, of course, alone in this respect; for example, in the justice system, judges are generally selected from the ranks of lawyers. So what is it that allows this form of system work, despite its evident circularity?
The justice system again provides a clue: judges are not the ones who ultimately decide what occurs in a courtroom: they simply implement the laws passed or imposed by the government—and politicians are not, in general, selected solely from the ranks of the legal profession. This is the ultimate “reality check” that prevents the legal system from spiraling into navel-gazing irrelevance.
Equivalent “escape valves” for science are not as explicitly obvious, but they exist nonetheless.
Firstly, a scientific discipline can maintain a “closed shop” mentality for a while, but eventually the institutions and funding agencies that provide the lifeblood of their work— the money that pays their wages and funds their research—will begin to question the relevance and usefulness of the discipline, particularly in relation to other disciplines that are competing for the same funds. This will generally be seen by the affected scientists as “political interference”, but it is a reflection of their descent into arrogance and delusions of self-importance for them to believe that only they themselves are worthy of judging their own merits.
Secondly, scientists who are capable and worthy, but unfairly “locked out” of a given discipline, will generally migrate to other disciplines in which the scientific process is working as it should. Dysfunctional disciplines will, in time, atrophy, in favor of those that are healthy and dynamic.
The Climategate emails show that these self-regulating mechanisms simply failed to work in the case of climate science—perhaps because “climate science” is itself an aggregation of many different and disparate scientific disciplines. Those component disciplines are extremely challenging. For example, it would be wonderful if NASA were able to invent a time machine, and go back over the past hundred thousand years and set up temperature and carbon dioxide measurement probes across the breadth of the globe. Unfortunately, we don’t have this. Instead, we need to infer these measurements, by counting tree rings, or digging up tubes of ice. The science of each of these disciplines is well-defined and rigorous, and there are many good scientists working in these fields. But the real difficulty is the “stitching together” of all of these results, in a way that allows answers to the fundamental questions: How much effect has mankind had on the temperature of the planet? And how much difference would it make if we did things differently?
It is at this “stitching together” layer of science—one could call it a “meta-discipline”— that the principles of the scientific method have broken down. Reading through the Climate-gate emails, one can see members of that community usually those with slightly different experience and wisdom than the power-brokers questioning (as they should) this “stitching together” process, particularly with regard to the extremely subtle mathematical methods that need to be used to try to extract answers. Now, these mathematical and statistical methods are completely within my own domain of expertise; and I can testify that the criticisms are sensible, carefully thought-out, and completely valid; these are good scientists, asking the right questions.
So what reception do they get? Instead of embracing this diversity of knowledge— thanking them for their experience (no one knows everything about everything) and using that knowledge to improve their own calculations—these power-brokers of climate science instead ignore, fob off, ridicule, threaten, and ultimately black-ball those who dare to question the methods that they—the power-brokers, the leaders—have used. And do not be confused: I am here talking about those scientists within their own camps, not the “skeptics” which they dismiss out of hand.
This is not “climate science”, it is climate ideology; it is the Church of Climatology.
It is this betrayal of the principles of science—in what is arguably the most important public application of science in our lifetime—that most distresses scientists.
“Firstly, a scientific discipline can maintain a “closed shop” mentality for a while, but eventually the institutions and funding agencies that provide the lifeblood of their work— the money that pays their wages and funds their research—will begin to question the relevance and usefulness of the discipline, particularly in relation to other disciplines that are competing for the same funds.”
The above position assumes the government funding agency/regulator is seeking answers rather than justification. It requires an Agency or Regulator to act contrary to that assumed by Regulatory Theory (Bernstein, Naskanen etc)- A Regulator, like any organism always seeks to grow in size and scope. Questioning “relevance” to a regulator is akin to questioning the relevance of the regulator. This cannot and will not happen via internal mechanisms.
The concept of academic migration is interesting but I would add academic turf or raiding wars to this mix. New “hot” crises are opportunities for one academic discipline to raid the turf of another- one can see the inroads of climate departments into geology’s historical turf.
I agree it is ideology and Science does very poorly in wars between conflicting values.
Environmental issues are further complicated by billions of dollars of rent seeking from industry (ex green technologies, carbon trading etc.), PACs from subsidized interests, unions, NGOs, etc. Benefits in human systems always flows toward concentrated interests and away form the Public’s more diffuse interests.
I think we ask too much of science- given it is conducted by humans. The system simply has no incentive to act in any other way. Go along and you are funded, your career is advanced and your family is secured, fail to adhere to a given paradigm and the opposite happens. Not only the individual scientist succeed but so does the associated University (and all the liberal arts departments that rely on science overhead charges to survive) Journals have no financial incentive to reduce the importance of its cover discipline- ex Climate goes bust so do the Journals and their employees. Rent seekers and subsidized interests fuel the political process that fuels the regulator and on and on. Media has built in source of scary stories that are written for them by NGOs. Even were these issues resolved we still have issues such as virtuous corruption, group think etc. The buffering of the current system has grown with time and works to promote stability.
Churchill may have been correct however this system will continue to produce the results it is designed to produce. (regulators especially those that can self fund such as EPA are largely autonomous and are not so vulnerable to the electorate)
This is a system at work, not as some claim conspiracy. Conspiracy is the term we use when we do not understand the system-( design, energy inputs, control systems, incentives etc.). We should step back from seeing this in human emotional (right and wrong) terms and look at it simply as the output of the currently designed system- then ask how such a system could work any other way? Like politics- the hope for “better people” are a poor answer to a flawed system. (Flawed is a Public perspective it is not flawed for may other interests) Want a different result? Change the system otherwise we are only naively hoping the system’ actors will not follow the obvious incentives.
The most pressing question for me when looking at things like Cap and Trade and the denial of reliable energy sources is will this system break the window of vitality?
Andrew Bolt is back from vacation.
The climate sure is changing at the CSIRO
Severe backing-away at CSIRO from linking drought in easter Australia to climate change.
‘’At this stage, we’d prefer to say we’re talking about natural variability. The science is not sufficiently advanced to say it’s climate change, one way or the other. The jury is still out on that,’’ Dr Post said.
Interesting reading. The rain of Climategate fallout continues.
agenda driven, government funded science.
“results” of said science to be imposed upon the populace.
we’ll see how that works out.
in fact, we are starting to. no more super-majority in the senate.
Peer review in itself is extremely flawed and biased. I hope for the death of peer review and for the death of the MSM. Blogs and secondary sources of information for everyone! Even if it is chaotic, let the truth be known.
Yet the MSM are still perpetuating the party line that the glacier story is the only “mistake” anyone has been able to find in IPCC4, as Ben Webster wrote in the Times today. However when I went to post a link, it was not on Times Online; instead their report had been buried in an avalanche of comments, about 90% of which were expressing less than complimentary views about Dr Pachauri and the IPCC. They will have to take their heads out of the sand soon enough.
Sigh. Why do people insist on perpetuating the myth that petroleum comes from dead plants and animals? The abiogenic origin of petroleum products is fairly well established, and observable on other planets incapable of supporting life, yet with vast quantities of methane.
Other than that, pretty interesting read.
I would wish to appeal to the Climategate “leaker”to release his remaining material.
A knockout punch is most definitely required i think.
George DeBusk (11:41:50):
“The funding pie is finite in size, and there is always a great fiscal incentive to hobble the opposition in any way possible.”
There is always a fiscal incentive to compete for scarce funds in any organization. But most scientists are honest, and resist the lure of accepting money and status that come from selling their reputations. The mainstream climate science clique described in this article has no such reservations.
That’s what makes this account so shocking. The strategizing to destroy individuals for simply having a different point of view, and the conniving to boycott and ruin journals, and getting people fired for not toeing their AGW line, and subverting editorial boards goes far beyond the natural, low key and honest jockeying for funds that normally occurs in any group or organization.
But the money involved in climategate is several orders of magnitude larger. Literally tens of billions of tax dollars have already been granted for ‘global warming studies,’ not to mention plenty of additional grant money handed out by private NGOs and quangos with a heavy pro-AGW agenda.
In this article we see a relatively small clique of gatekeepers strategizing to attack and marginalize any individual or journal that might be even mildly skeptical of climate alarmism – often before reading the paper submitted, and based entirely on the name of the individual submitting it.
Money and control are the primary motivations for the AGW climate scare. It is not honest science, because contrary [skeptical] views are ruthlessly attacked and kept out by hook or by crook; there is almost no grant money available to those pointing out that the current climate is very benign by historical standards, and that there is zero empirical evidence showing that X increase in CO2 equates to Y increase in temperature. Facts such as those must be kept out of the public consciousness at all costs.
The UN’s heavy and overt involvement makes the situation much worse, because the UN is running a worldwide climate scam aimed at fleecing the West. Any honest organization would look at the fact that the planet has been generally cooling over most of the past decade despite naturally rising CO2, and the fact that not one of the predicted AGW scares have come true – and would therefore decide to wait at least a few years to determine if the always wrong AGW claims have any basis in the real world before instigating a huge new world tax to “fight climate change.”.
But they don’t want to wait. They demand the West’s money to be transferred right now, to “mitigate” a non-problem. It is interesting that UN Sec-Gen Kofi Annan’s proposed annual World Tax of .7% of GDP has been put on the back burner by his successor Ban Ki Moon, and a replacement ‘carbon tax’ of the same .7% of GDP is now proposed to be paid into the unaccountable UN. Of course, a .7% tax will soon become a 1% tax, and will inexorably ratchet upward from there.
The CO2 scare is all about redistributing money from taxpayers in the West, and paid through the opaque UN. Anything remaining would be paid out to countries, some of which are in dire straits – not because of the climate or rising sea levels, but for only one reason: they have bad governments.
Whoever leaked the climategate emails has done a great service to the already over-taxed workers in the industrialized countries. It is astonishing that some folks still don’t see the UN for exactly what it is: a corrupt organization salivating like ravenous hyenas at the prospect of $100 billion+ per year being paid by U.S. taxpayers alone, and an equal percentage to be paid to the grifter’s by the other pigeons: the G-8 countries.
It is really amazing that the relatively small clique described in this article came so close to making that a done deal last month. The climategate emails saved us from that fate – temporarily, at least. Whoever leaked those emails is as much a hero to society as someone who tackles a purse snatcher.
Suppression of the presentation balanced information to the public is possibly worse than that in scientific journals. Scientists are a minority when it comes to voting for our politicians, who support the AGW nonsense. The way that information is presented to the masses is critical.
Newpapers such as the Sydney Morning Herald continue to show a ridiculously strong bias towards AGW. Recent articles have mocked Lord Monkton’s visit to Australia; suggested the IPCC glacier story is incorrect; and failed entirely to report the details of ClimateGate.
It would be interesting to follow the money in regard to the reasons for the Sydney Morning Herald’s bias.
As an (unpublished) scientist (I got an “et al” during my university days) with 30 years industrial experience, I am deeply saddened by the extent to which this coterie of climatites conspired to conceal, convince and coerce.
Many thanks to the ‘whistle-blower” whoever they may be.
Any scientist that reads this can only feel ashamed and chastened.
Unfortunately the public and politicians are not sufficiently scientifically literate to appreciate that “the process of ‘stitching together’ layers of science—one could call it a ‘meta-discipline’— have broken down.” Consequently, these subtleties are drowned out by the much cruder gross bellowings about what “the science” supposedly tells us.
To appreciate this, you only have to look at the disconnect between the fallout from climategate and their other misdemeanours, and the way the world is carrying on regardless. The contrast is quite jarring. After spending a few hours on WUWT we can see clearly how utterly broken the AGW hypothesis has become and are already writing its obituary. Now switch on the television and you are immediately immersed in an Alice-through-the-looking-glass world. TV ads tell you how you can lower your carbon footprint; articles in the local press show representatives proudly displaying a new solar roofs on the community halls and urging everyone to do their bit; government mandates are being sent out to organisations telling them to do their carbon audits by April, or else.
What is going on? How can there be two completely contradictory realities existing at the same time? Costella has written about the escape valves in science, but I think we are living through a perfect storm where these valves are no longer able to function. When escape valves fail, there is usually only one outcome.
Unfortunately “tainted” science is considered to be undeniable fact in this field.
Nice analysis, Pat Moffitt. Esp. like the line “I think we ask too much of science- given it is conducted by humans.” Funny that despite all our modern cynicism about the way the world works, most people in developed societies expect scientists to be able to divine the truth and light the way to a material salvation, as if leading scientists had some kind of supernatural power.
As a historian of science, I try to get across to my students the marvelous roles of accident, serendipity, visual and imaginative metaphors, and sometimes just plain stubbornness, that allow scientific breakthroughs. Even totally inept scientists, such as the main ‘discoverer’ of insulin, Frederick Banting, sometimes just get lucky (stubbornness played a major role in his case). Unfortunately, the flip side of this humanity is the retarding role the venal side of human nature plays – cowardice and unwillingness to break with convention, money-grubbing, envy and malicious competition, and the quest for recognition. Climategate has all of the latter in spades, and from the sounds of it Costella’s book does a decent job of grappling with how these influenced climate science. I look forward to reading it.
OT but on-topic…
Roger Pielke Jr has highlighted another peer review error on his web site at
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/01/more-laundered-literature-guest-post-by.html
“According to the IPCC, climate change could halve yields from rain-fed crops in parts of Africa as early as 2020, and put 50 million more people worldwide at risk of hunger. ”
From Roger Pielke Jr blog:
“That the IPCC is citing non-peer-reviewed, non-scientific research from quasi governmental semi-independent sustainability advocacy organisations must say something about the dearth of scientific or empirical research. The paper in question barely provides any references for its own claims, yet by virtue of merely appearing in the IPCC’s 2007 AR4 report, a single study, put together by a single researcher, becomes “consensus science”.”
All excellent stuff. How many more errors, or errors by omission?
I’ve been appalled for a long time at the lack of backbone from honest scientists who should have spoken out loud and clear to expose the fraudulent works of the IPCC and Al Gore. It’s a lot like the old but true saying “All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing”. It’s not too late. Scientists all around the world must combine forces and destroy the AGW myth. If they don’t their reputations will be ruined for a long time as the public will unfairly regard all scientists as cheaters and liars, along side other disreputable professions.
REPLY: It is easy to criticize, anyone can do it. But the source of true action lies with you, the citizen. I ask, what have you done? – Anthony
The peer review process has probably seen its zenith. It is too slow and cumbersome. And ‘peers’ are typically either too busy or not specialized enough to really be able to judge a paper. It also assumes that lay reades somehow need sheltering from information because they are too naive or ignorant to be able to judge for themselves.
Academia, like the MSM, is very far behind the curve. The internet is a very open medium, as the author’s contribution to this website shows. It is content, not distribution, which will dominate, and the judges of quality will be the readers, not the editors.
Thanks for the kind comments, all.
I have made a few hours spare today, as I had seen an early version of this analysis,
and wanted to read the latest one.
It is a must read, and can only leave the reader
with no doubt whatsoever.
What I can not “get” is how blinkered, political, and hypocritical the email writers were. They just seem oblivious to their own actions and how political and unscientific they are.
Exactly what they accuse anyone with a different view of being.
It is so obvious, yet they (seemingly genuinely) can not see it, untill very close to the end.
Staggering, utterly staggering,
as I say read it, you will be left with no doubt whatsoever.
AGW is false, deliberately false, and
has completely as possible suppressed discussion or debate.
Any “dissent” from the party line was crushed asap.
NB – Ben Santer – Unbelievable, how and why was he tolerated for so long. ?
The web has changed MSM publishing, and Science (and “psudo-science”), the Arts, government, industry, finance, etc., more than most realize. It will continue to do so; it is still very new. “Peer Review” is still a viable method of weeding out the weeds; but it is being included in and supplanted by blogs and special restricted access sites. Professional journals are having the same difficulties as every other print media; it’s not that people don’t read, it’s that they don’t read paper. Professionals of every stripe must police their own organization – no change in this area, none whatsoever. Once an organization has been “taken over” by special interests the membership has few choices; no change here either. Watch the world change before your eyes, turn on your computer.
Anthony, I’ve done lots. I’ve written to politicians on both sides to wake them up and warn them of the dangerous situation to our Australian economy if the CPRS was passed in the Senate. I’ve participated in talk back radio shows to voice my opinion. I’ve also posted on blog sites various materials to demonstrate how weak the AGW thesis is. Most of actions are based on the limited knowledge and experience in atmospheric physics that I’ve gained completing my PhD in Physics. There’s not much more I can do.
REPLY: Good to know, I encourage others to follow this example. Thanks. -A
John P. Costella. In the western justice system one can be found not guilty but never innocent. ‘Innocence’ can never be proved.
actually, using the criminal justice analogy is problematic in your argument. The American exclusionary rule for evidence implies nothing about its truth value or its empirical status as a fact. Facts that are excluded in American courts are included all the time in Canada and other countries. If the fact collecting violated the suspects “civil rights” he can sue the police in Canada, as apposed to the courts throwing the facts out. I find it curious that the liberal wing of the Supreme Court often cite foreign judicial precedents, or view them favorably, but never foreign precedents for excluding the American exclusionary rule. An interesting selectivity.
Re bikermailman
“The major factor in both is trust. If the people’s trust in either fails, it all falls apart. Come to think of it, our economic system is based on trust as well”
Not to be contentious, but I think that Science is based at least partly on the trust of the Public, but our economic system is based entirely on self interest. When out individual self interest overlaps, there is room for cooperation. Where self interest of individuals is in conflict, there is competition. Both are good: one builds, the other refines. If the economy were based on trust, we would not need contracts. Contracts are just statements of the balances of self interest.
Believe me, I am a prosecutor: do not trust anyone – get it in writing!
“So what, exactly, does “peer-reviewed” mean? Simply that other professional scientists in that discipline must agree that the paper is worthy of publication. And what is the criterion that determines who these “professional scientists” should be? Their success in achieving publication of their papers in peer-reviewed journals! Catch-22.”
Journals seem to be a major stumbling block here – perhaps acceeding to established dogma and reputations without just cause. Are editors failing to weigh up the clear conflict of interests when they ask particular scientists to review papers that have opposing ideas within them? I would suggest they are. The fear of being wrong has molested the scientific method into something else – a patchwork of vested interests more concerned with protecting their own reputation than doing good science. We see this in the leaked CRU emails when disparaging comments are made about journals the CRU/Mann cabal do not like.
Is the peer-review process meant to prevent incorrect science from ever being published? I do not see why – people learn from their mistakes and the mistakes of others. If scientists reviewing papers have some misunderstood notion that they have to prevent incorrect theories from being published perhaps a re-education is in order. Or at the very least journal editors growing some balls. But then, the reputation thing comes into play again.
As it happens I have just finished watching a BBC programme called Chemistry: A Volatile History. Episode one is brimming with the history of the discovery of elements, and the dogma that kept science in the dark for centuries. From the Greek notion of 4 elements to the theory of phlogiston. At the heart of the programme was that the sharing of ideas and experiments is what drove science forward.
RE: Pat Moffitt (12:48:51) :
“The above position assumes the government funding agency/regulator is seeking answers rather than justification.”
One of the fundamental flaws of government funding is the same as industry funding: if the funding agency is seeking a certain answer, they are going to get it. There is just as much bias when you are funded by, say, NOAA, as if you are funded by Exxon. The conclusion will NEVER be “it would be fine to reduce the budget of NOAA because they are doing too much.” The motive may not be profit, but the motive is still measurable in dollars.