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.
I do not think that it is the “stiching together of many disciplines” than is the culprit in the poor state of climate science, although it explain why it is not ruled out by a few careful experiments like it could in fundamental physics (well, before experiments in fundamental physics involved such energies as not to be feasible without ever larger and more expensive toys (they finish in -tron usually 😉 ).
No, the real problem is that almost all actors have ideological and/or financial interests in the issue, that the issue is a form of catastrophism so heavily mediatised and subsidized depending on mediatisation. When that happen, the consensus is rolling in ideological/financial directions and science takes a lot of time (one or more generation of scientists) to finally win…
Examples abound: Darwinism/Lamarckism (a long time the official USSR consensus)/creationism (still preferred by many religious people)
Or nurture/nature in psychology, or the whole evolutionary psychology field (here it is political correctness that pollute scientific discussions).
Or toxicity studies (tobacco, weight, electromagnetic waves;…). Money and “Nature is good, man is bad” meme poluting the debate again (those ones are very similar to AGW).
In all those cases, what finally emerged as the scientific truth took a long time (or still is disputed), and it is not always the same side that was true.
What is worse today than at Darwin time is that science is much more team work that it was at the time…and team are even more suceptible to group-think, less proud and more easily bough out, and have more inertia than brilliant individuals.
In the case of AGW, my gut feeling is that what will finally kill it is it’s over-reliance on public support: a combination of weather (one more cold winter), economic crisis (environmentalism is a rich-people preoccupation) and
James Chamberlain (13:08:52) :
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.
We are witnessing the beginnings of “blog ratings.” With one vote per unique verified individual, these non-MSM news and commentary sources (blogs) and even individual articles will be rated. Putting up good pieces will be reflected in a blog’s rating. There will also be a weighted rating, to show for example that although a piece has a 100% rating with three votes, only six people have ever viewed it thus the approval rating may not be representative of the online population. People will better be able to judge who to trust based on how other people trust them.
This will go along with the growth of “peer to peer” review. Someone posts a paper, the community reviews and comments. We may also see “live papers” where corrections and changes are made based on knowledgeable commentary for a period, then the paper is “frozen” in its final state. Which sort of mimics open source programming, specifically the Linux community. You write it, post it, modify it, release (what is currently) the final version, then others can build on your work, mainly because you release your original code (data) with the work.
It will look chaotic, and scare hell out of the Old Guard who think the old systems works just fine, but there will be a developing order where good is separated from bad, and even “out there” stuff can be seen and judged on its relative quality.
As before we saw the transitioning from the rule of monarchs to indirect democracy, now we are seeing a shift to direct democracy. However we have the technology to do so now at a level of order beyond that of a mob, on a large scale that can conceivably cover the planet.
We are in interesting times.
Seldom have I encountered a more pretentious and melodramatic piece of filibustering than John Costella’s. His clumsy attempt to explore some imagined analogy between the hierarchies of authority in law and in science provides no insight,and collapses when he points out that law workers are fundamentally agents of government decree. Science has to be coherent with natural ‘laws’ which are not negotiated by human legislature. Skeptics are not ‘dismissed out of hand’: science ideas that are found lacking are wither when they are found theoretically,methodically and physically inadequate.
Too many people here have convinced themselves that chanting slogans is the equivalent of scientific skepticism.
Costella’s effort to act as an informed interlocutor in his commentary on these selected communications is variously naive,overreaching and ill-willed.
Nick… say what?
I have been following WUWT for several months now. I find it extremely fascinating and would like to thank Anthony and his crew for all their work. It seems to me like a very big undertaking. I am a PhD atmospheric scientist (meteorologist), but please don’t hold that against me. My field of expertise is in severe weather and boundary layer flow, and I have only a limited knowledge of climatology. However, we do have to use climate statistics regularly in meteorology research. My views of the climate science are along the lines of fellows like Dr. Lindzen, which puts me in the skeptics camp. I have never seen anything wrong with being skeptical in science. That is how we advance.
Most of you, I note, are not familiar with the peer review process. There are now some journals that do the whole submission and peer review on-line, right out in the open for all to see. I think this may be the way of the future for publishing and peer review. There is really nothing you can hide this way. One journal in my field that does this is the Electronic Journal of Severe Storms Meteorology:
http://ejssm.org/index.html.
If you would like to see some examples of what takes place in a peer review navigate over to the Archives section and call up some of the articles:
http://www.ejssm.org/ojs/index.php/ejssm/issue/archive.
The reviewers comments and the submitters’ rebuttals are after the main manuscript. The ones prior to 2009 have an html version which loads quicker. You may find some interesting reading about severe storms and tornadoes.
This sort of report surely is the tip of the iceberg as far as the impact that Climategate has had on the wider world scientific community. I am not a scientist but I have been able to read as much as I want about it on the web. This makes me think that many scientists have done the same.
As this article indicates the implications for what has happened have a great deal more impact and relevance to scientists that to somebody like me. By this I mean they know all about the way things should work and many of them will know personally the dramatis personae on all sides of this debate.
As the report says a scientist (like us non-scientists) usually has to take it on trust that other scientists are honest and can back up what they say with valid data. I live in England. I have never been to Florida but the evidence for its existence seems to be pretty good so I accept that it exists without first hand experience or investigation. We all do this sort of thing all the time.
But now trust has been lost. The BS efforts by some ‘scientists’ and even more journalists to say – nothing to see, move along – can easily be seen by scientists for the rubbish they truly are.
I should like to think that currents have shifted in the wider scientific world because of all this and that scientists, most of whom have said nothing publically, will step by step act to put their house in order over the coming months and years.
if they make it into a book i will buy it
@Nick
Yes indeed, that’s the strenght of science: experimental data have the last word…But, on many scientific debates, gathering undisputable evidence to validate/falsify a theory is a difficult and long process, something that often takes scientific breakthrough to do.
Many times, there is ample opportunities for ideology, politics, power games and money scheme during the time needed to gather enough empirical evidences.
AGW is nothing special.
Darwinism, or Eletromagnetic waves toxicity, or string theory, or many politically uncorrect evolutionary psychology theories. Darwinism is settled (well, not for everybody, but there I would really speak about denialism when challenging the core of the theory – common descent and natural selection). For the other ones, and for AGW, pick your side and fight.
Nick (14:46:33) :
Seldom have I encountered a more pretentious and melodramatic piece of filibustering than John Costella’s. His clumsy attempt to explore some imagined analogy between the hierarchies of authority in law and in science provides no insight,and collapses when he points out that law workers are fundamentally agents of government decree. Science has to be coherent with natural ‘laws’ which are not negotiated by human legislature. Skeptics are not ‘dismissed out of hand’: science ideas that are found lacking are wither when they are found theoretically,methodically and physically inadequate.
Too many people here have convinced themselves that chanting slogans is the equivalent of scientific skepticism.
Costella’s effort to act as an informed interlocutor in his commentary on these selected communications is variously naive,overreaching and ill-willed.
============
ok.
(now you are supposed to refute his claims with facts).
we are waiting.
In 1984 Sir Peter Medawar, who shared the 1960 Nobel Prize for Medical Research with Sir Macfarlane Burnet, published a wonderful, small (108 pages in my edition) book called The Limits of Science (ISBN 0-06-039036-0). What Medawar wrote then is just as relevant today.
“The most heinous offence a scientist as a scientist can commit is to declare to be true that which is not so; if a scientist cannot interpret the phenomenon he is studying, it is a binding obligation upon him to make it possible for another to do so.”
As evidenced by the CRU emails there are a number of scientists today who do not subscribe to this view.
Medawar continues: “If a scientist is suspected of falsifying or inventing evidence to promote his material interests or to corroborate a pet hypothesis, he is relegated to a kind of half-world separated from real life by a curtain of disbelief; for as with other human affairs, science can only proceed on a basis of confidence, so that scientists do not suspect each other of dishonesty or sharp practise, and believe each other unless there is very good reason to do otherwise”.
And:
“The principal cause of fraud in science is a passionate conviction of the truth of some … doctrine”.
And:
“The ‘self-monitoring’ system that science is reputed to enjoy can be assumed to work very well in most cases, but there are special circumstances in which it breaks down.” Medawar then cites the case of Sir Cyril Burt, Professor of Phycology in University College London, “who invented or manipulated data on the IQs of identical or fraternal twins ….. (so) as to make an overwhelming case for” nature not nurture being the preponderant determination of IQ. The reason why these frauds were not immediately picked up was that “Burt told the IQ boys exactly what they wanted to hear, so they had no incentive to inquire deeply into the authenticity of his work”.
Sound familiar?
I am not a scientist; however I have always had trust in the scientific process, as I understand (understood?) it, for its ability to arrive at the ‘truth’ regardless of any personal or partisan bias. I believe this still to be the case and that bad science is invariably exposed, eventually. The problem is that the massive amount of public monies invested often seem conditional on providing outcomes that support a particular political view point or agenda.
I think the use of the the term ‘science’ is problematic for the public. For me science is about rational thought and advancing the understanding of our natural world (universe). The science of climate change is fascinating but difficult to test.
The test of quality research in this field is even more difficult. Certainly the grading of evidence seems to have been replaced by the test of peer review and media approval. All ‘science’ is not equal. I can not think of another field where multiple proxies and true data are mixed together adjusted and plotted with dubious baselines, but most of the world believes it. Science has taken a big step backwards and we witness the media, voices such as Scientific American and the Royal Society are promoting political views dressed as science.
The power brokers in certain fields control the peer review and the argument from authority means many years pass before traditional entrenched views are surpassed. So for me ‘The science is in’ represents a closed mind whereas skeptical thinking is truly the ‘sine qua non’ of science
There are as many false prophets in science as there are in religion. It is our duty to teach our children how to be scientific, not to be one or the other, but to have the tools to answer the question.
Costella is wandering off course when he writes this, “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.” (my emphasis)
The question should be, ‘And what is the criterion that determines whether these papers are published? Whether they are not falsified during review, and meet the scientific standards of fact and theory.’
The question of “who” is a tangential and irrelevant issue that depicts science as a political activity, which it is not. As evidence for this, it is when science is politicized that attention is drawn and disapproval is registered. This sort of protest is absent from ordinary science, because ordinary science does not suffer from political bias.
That’s not to say that politics don’t intrude. The whole sorry AGW episode is an example of the worst sort of political corruption of science. And it didn’t happen because several disparate disciplines were “stitched” together. It happened because some people knew the right answer without actually knowing it, and who then did their work tendentiously. After that, they attained prominence and used their power to protect their result by political means. Let’s note this played into the top-down structure of the IPCC, which is certainly not a democracy. And the hierarchical structure of the IPCC provided levers of influence to passionately partisan environmental NGOs. It’s the classic smoke filled room motif, given a wash of green. Ironic, isn’t it.
But generally, and certainly in my experience, controversial papers that challenge current theory or current views are not suppressed or side-tracked. They get published after standard peer review. It may be that the review is unusually vigorous, but it is generally not dishonest.
In a way, this is as it should be because serious challenges need serious vetting for mistakes. We all know about people asserting disproofs of relativistic mechanics, or evolution, or whatever. Most of these challenges get some sort of hearing and most of them are nonsense. But any serious challenge that meets the criteria of good science gets published. “Who” doesn’t enter into it.
Where we should be concerned is the attempts in Washington, at NIH and NSF especially, to reject pure research and fund applied research, or technologically or socially useful research. More and more, really good basic research is disappeared, as people don’t get funding for it. The rejection of such grants can be viewed as due to a kind of righteous utilitarian morality. In the long run, it will stifle the jumps in understanding that only a vigorous basic science can provide.
George DeBusk (11:41:50) :
Thank you for that information George. It is vitial and if I had my own blog I would want it to be a post.
Re: Smokey (13:27:56) :
“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. ”
I dare say the scientists who practice the sort of hardball politics in peer review do not see themselves as selling their reputations, but as defending that which they feel with moral certainty is right. When you set yourself to a point of view, and you invest your career in supporting and defending that point of view, you tend to see alternatives to your point of view as a threat. This happened even before the government became the near sole provider of research funds. Look, for example, at the difficulties of early proponents of Continental Drift and the Heliocentrism. Both interpretations were clearly superior to those they supplanted, but they were not immediately accepted because the prior interpretations were so established (for religious reasons in one case and from simple obstinancy in the other). The centralization of the funding process in the Federal Government simply institutionalized the sort of defense of the dominant paradigm. Now a new idea does not just have to win in the arena of scientific debate, but must first win in the government funding arena. Look, for example at the idea that humans migrated to the New World before the LGM at 12KYBP. A study looking to find support for humans in the New World before 12KYBP would have been laughed out of the NSF 25 years ago, but now finds fertile ground. The proponents of the idea practiced funding politics well.
I guess my point is that scientific merit, not the internal politics of funding agencies and reviewers, should decide what research is done. I know of few fields where that is the case. I would like to think medical research is judged more by success than by politics, but would not be surprised to learn that is not the case.
Hell, I’m gullible. Before I went to grad school I thought science was immune from politics and bias. Please, don’t laugh at me. I was only 20 when I started my PhD!
Any self-respecting scientist never assumes that what is written in journal articles is correct. If the paper is interesting, then the experiment or derivation or simulation is worth replication. But before said replication has been undertaken, the safe assumption is, in fact, that the paper is wrong. I was told once that researchers need to take caution because, in the end, over a third of all published findings will end up being wrong. I think that’s the part of science that most people, including the author here, miss for a variety of reasons. Being wrong about one’s research is just part of the method. My advisor told me ‘the expert is the one who has been wrong the most’. I think readers should keep that in mind more than anything.
Good luck!
At least they admitted in the emails that they don’t actually know why it hasn’t been warming for a decade and that the models may be faulty. No surprise to us! So despite all the criticism heaped upon skeptics they have even admitted privately that the skepticism is justified. If only the team could just manage to be honest about that and stop spinning to the press.
Trenberth says the heat is either escaping from the atmosphere (something he later disputed when Lindzen proved it indeed was), being hidden in the deep sea (somewhat impossible without warming the surface on the way there) or it’s the data collection that’s faulty (the old standby). But all the unadjusted datasets agree with each other and disagree with the models. What does it take to get them to remove the blinkers and remember that science is supposed to be about seeking the truth, however unpalatable?
As could have been predicted actually just by observing the sheer number of hyped-up pseudo-scientific scares in the recent past, the observations are all saying that CO2 warming isn’t significant and in a rational world that should be the end of it.
Nick (14:46:33) :
Have you looked out the window Nick? Mother Nature isn’t agreeing with you either.
How are you going to categorize her acts?
Also,
haven’t you found “consensus among scientists”, “beyond debate”, “we must act now”, etc. to be chanted slogans?
Re; don (14:19:51) :
“actually, using the criminal justice analogy is problematic in your argument.”
You make an excellent point. The idea behind the exclusionary rule is that the police will not violate the Constitution if they do not benefit from the ill-gotten gains, so evidence that is very probative of guilt is excluded if it is obtained in violation of the rules. The jury never gets the whole story, and not just because of the Exclusionary Rule. For instance, if the defendant is accused of rape ten times before and stands accused of rape now, the admission of the ten previous rapes is considered “unduly prejudicial.” From a logical standpoint, however, the fact that the defendant has done it before is clearly probative of guilt. Many other things are withheld from the jury by the rules of court, and that is troubling in many instances to victims, prosecutors, and jurors. Still, both sides get the chance to be heard, even if the arguments are limited. Imagine a system where a prosecutor was able to convince the judge that the defense really did not have to be heard because their interpretation of the facts was wrong. That would be frightening, but that happens routinely in peer review.
Pops (14:55:42) :
Nick… say what?
————————————————————–
Pops,
what Nick has made with his comment is called a smoke screen, i.e., he is saying, “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain”
This article has eloquently summarised all of my concerns as a scientist.
I am not a Climate Scientist, but I have a thorough understanding of scientific methodology. I am a Clinical Researcher and responsible for ensuring that the data from clinical studies is accurate and attributable. If I was to conduct myself and treat/ manipulate my data in the same way as has been demonstated here the regulatory authorities would very rapidly bring me to book. As a researcher my actions have an impact on a selected population, the impact that these scientists have here is immeasurably greater (in terms of affecting government policy, country development etc.) and therefore I cannot understand why they should not be subject to the same stringent regulations and legislation that I am obliged to abide by.
maxwell (15:49:17) :
Any self-respecting scientist never assumes that what is written in journal articles is correct. If the paper is interesting, then the experiment or derivation or simulation is worth replication. But before said replication has been undertaken, the safe assumption is, in fact, that the paper is wrong. I was told once that researchers need to take caution because, in the end, over a third of all published findings will end up being wrong. I think that’s the part of science that most people, including the author here, miss for a variety of reasons. Being wrong about one’s research is just part of the method. My advisor told me ‘the expert is the one who has been wrong the most’. I think readers should keep that in mind more than anything.
Good luck!
===============
possibly, the reason most of us are here is because we heard the science was “SETTLED”. NEVER tell a scientist, it’s settled.
Need I also point out the “Science and Public Policy Institute” is a right-wing think tank with a clearly biased agenda, and should therefore be given the same credibility as Greenpeace and WWF.
Except where the former are making up BS to save trees and whales, the SPPI is making up BS to save corporate dollars.
It’s like watching rats fighting over a corpse.
Re: maxwell (15:49:17) :
“Being wrong about one’s research is just part of the method. My advisor told me ‘the expert is the one who has been wrong the most’. I think readers should keep that in mind more than anything.”
Well said. The basis of the scientific method is the falsification of hypotheses. A scientist observes, then makes a hypothesis about how the world works. For example: I see that the amount of infrared radiation absorbed by a dry atmosphere inreases measurably as the partial pressure of CO2 increases. Therefore, I hypothesize that the Earth’s entire atmosphere will warm if the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere increases. You could then try to falsify that hypothesis, for instance, by looking at the temperature history of certain regions. Someone might plot the temperature history of, say, the Arctic north of 70 degrees of latitude and point out that the temperature fell from the 1940s to the late 1970s and then argue that falsifies the atmospheric CO2 hypothesis because the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere was increasing steadily during that period. Someone else might reasonably argue that it does not falsify the hypothesis for some reason (I am sure such a reason exists . . . I guess). That is scientific debate.
If one does everything in their power to silence the person wishing to falsify the hypothesis, that is not science but politics – even if the effort to silence the foe is based on scientific beliefs rather than, say, Marxism or Environmentalism.
My overall point is that the efforts to silence opponents rather than debate them is far more prevalent in science than many – particularly many scientists – are willing to accept. I have been through the peer review process both on funding (mostly unsuccessfully) and in journals (successful on all attempts). I did not really become embittered to the system until I found out one opponent of one of my papers gave it a bad review and then contacted the editor as well as another reviewer and tried to get the paper spiked. It did not work for that one paper, but it did make me leave academia in disgust. I guess bad science won that one.
John Hooper:
Whatever your thoughts of SPPI, the opinions and analysis are mine. And far from calling me a right-wing anything, many are getting caught up in the fact that Jim Fetzer, who kindly allows his website to host mine, is most certainly at the other end of the spectrum.
You can google my home page and decide for yourself if I’m a polarised-wing anything.
I’m enjoying reading my opinions being taken apart and criticised. Please do keep in mind that I tried to boil complex issues down to simple terms, which the subtleties argued here go far beyond. As with any simplification, each and every sentence could be teased out into an entire debate. (And it seems it is, right here.) 🙂
The science peer review process is not good enough when the IPCC is recommending such drastic measures to counteract what they say is happening to the climate.
Shouldn’t the IPCC have more structured oversight than just the peer review process?
When science directly affects society, it is usually subjected to more thorough oversight and more stringent, precriptive standards for quality assurance. Some examples are the medical profession, pharmacuetical development, and nuclear industry.
It’s time formal, comprehensive oversight is imposed on the IPCC. Also, any scientific studies that feed the IPCC and their reports should be required to meet additional standards. Reviewers should meet stringent criteria for independence and qualification. Reviewers from all appropriate disciplines should be required, including statisticians. If a study does not meet the requirements, then the IPCC cannot use it.
I would like to recommend this to my congressional delegation, but not sure what they could do even if they agreed since the IPCC is a UN organization.