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.
It’s also a Nobel lie.
The legal analogy is one that goes a long way to positioning the debate in a fruitful way. In our book, we borrow a phrase that steve Mcintyre passed along
Noble Cause Corruption.
google it
About 2/3 through a previous thread here I posted long extracts from Joel Best’s book, Flavor of the month: Why smart people fall for fads, that relate to what you are saying. Go here and search (Ctrl + F) for “flavor”:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/05/pielke-senior-arctic-temperature-reporting-in-the-news-needs-a-reality-check/
Dr. Costello writes a good piece, but remain a bit skeptical of his analysis due to his history of work in other modern conspiracy theories.
@rbateman (11:35:10) :
“This formula worked for millenia.
The present incarnation of AGW has foundered due to the inability to corner the market on climate science. The group that intended to force others to sacrifice at the AGW altar is now being eyed narrowly as disposable.
That was brief, but beware, others will try it.”
An excellent post rbateman! Unfortunately, this AGW group is not going away. They will alter their positions, and try again. They need to be closely watched.
Unfortunately, this “betrayal of the principles of science” became the standard mode of operation (SOP) in the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and in our space agency (NASA) long before the current climategate scandal.
Since the time of the 1969 Apollo Mission to the Moon, NAS and NASA successfully distorted and manipulated space age data that might expose the myth of the Hydrogen-filled Sun. More recently DOE got into the act and reported that solar neutrinos from H-fusion oscillate away before we can detect them!
Thus Climategate is just the visible tip of a very dirty iceberg.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA PI for Apollo
Emeritus Professor of
Nuclear & Space Studies
u.k.(us) (16:03:42) :
possibly, the reason most of us are here is because we heard the science was “SETTLED”. NEVER tell a scientist, it’s settled.
Ain’t that the truth! This resonates strongly for me. Hearing that AGW is settled (or that there’s overwhelming evidence) sets my teeth on edge. It’s just so implausible on its face as to be hilarious. Something as complicated and chaotic as a whole planet’s climate is so well modeled that we can predict temperatures out dozens of years? Balderdash.
I keep looking for the overwhelming evidence that I’m apparently missing and I just can’t find it. All I seem to be able to come up with is a supposed correlation between increases in CO2 and warming. First principal: correlation does not equal causation. And then to learn the details of the temperature measurements….
Agreed.
I’d rather chaotic truth, than orderly lies.
But I think most folks think of “secondary sources” in terms like some idiot science writer at “The Guardian”. A primary source is the actual study. A secondary source is a report on the study. A tertiary source is a report on the report of the study and so on. Wikipedia is a good example of a tertiary source in many instances. Which is why I normally reject a Wiki reference out of hand. Apart from that quibble, I’m in agreement.
Doug in Seattle (20:34:24):
I acknowledge that some, like yourself, believe that my work on the Zapruder film and the NTSB investigation of the Wellstone plane crash push my neutrality too far to the left for me to be credible. I can’t change that opinion, and I won’t try. There are other forums for us to discuss any disagreements you have with my findings on those topics.
Even so, I encourage you to read the email excerpts themselves: just ignore everything in black font. That was what I really wanted to contribute. The commentary was only added, originally, on the request of a (busy) colleague (ironically, he has reviewed papers in that field), in order to place the excerpts in context more quickly.
John Costella (21:26:09) :
I have read your breakdown of the emails and find only a few things I disagree with. The emails speak for themselves if one take the time to wade through them.
My only serious issue lies in your usage of the term fraud. Bad science, lousy ethics, and misleading (and outright lying) in pursuit a political goal are pretty clear, but these are not crimes – at least not in America.
If Dr Costella purports to be offering analysis of the emails,then what is he doing with the Funkhouser/Briffa exchanges in the third and fourth emails cited?
Funkhouser informs Briffa that the raw material he was working on was compromised by what appears to be inconsistent values. He goes into some detail about this. He states that a co-worker didn’t find any great climate response either and that he is still exploring the options.
Yes,Dr Briffa has his interests in what the data Funkhouser is analysing offers. Is this sinister or even surprising? Briffa expresses interest in any content relevant to the Holocene. He is hopeful,as is Funkhouser, something useful can be extracted from the data,after the time and expense of the fieldwork. Who wouldn’t be?
Funkhouser replies that he’s tried everything to get something of value from the data,but it is not possible. The data is ‘tempting’-hinting at some useful information- but there is ‘too much variation even within stands’. See ya Keith ,catch up for a beer one day.
What has Dr Costella got to say about all this? That Funkhouser is hiding the results because they don’t tell the story he wants. But Funkhouser has explained that NO story of any reliable kind can be extracted from the material.
It boils down to the interpretation of “climate responses”; Costella interprets this as not showing evidence of warming. I argue,given the detail Funkhouser gives, that it can be interpreted as not showing evidence of any consistent signals useful for any interpretation-‘Valeri didn’t find any great climate responses either’ writes Funkhouser. It’s dud material. Not a concealed ‘null’ result,but no result at all.
Then Dr Costella ,who has already fingered Briffa as a blundering ‘older conspirator’ in his pre-amble and a ‘curious character’ here, alleges that Briffa has ‘influenced’ Funkhouser’s analysis. Why? It’s obvious that Funkhouser sought some counsel on alternative approaches,but there is nothing for it but ‘to look for an option where I can let this little story go as it is’.
Dr Costella has made no attempt to find and examine the material being discussed,and is ever-willing to ascribe motive that reflects poorly on his targets,without acknowledging any ambiguity or alternative interpretation thrown up in these stolen, selected and decontextualised exchanges. Not very scientific,really.
I’m sorry,people,but ‘the emails speak for themselves’ is code for ‘this is how they talk to me’. At best.
To those who are critical of the paper, (you have every right to be) I believe you are missing a rare golden opportunity, in front of a blogg full of skeptics at that.
Here is a paper that is NOT cluttered with complicated mathematical equations nor does it use computer models or graphs etc Put simply, the emails are the DATA. How that data is interpreted and chronologically presented is the “meat” of the paper and the authors thoughts and conclusions.
The paper is at hand, so how about a “review” of the paper by one or some of you? Go thru it page by page and identify the “errors” as you see them.
This is a rare opportunity in front of so many skeptics, anyone up to it?
Keep swinging Nick… at some point you may even land one. You’ll have to do some artful dodging after you get past the first few relatively innocuous emails. The juicy stuff ain’t for pages yet…
For all intents and purposes, the whole thing is a hoax. There’s not enough there to worry about. Humans have far more pressing problems. We should stick with the basics of reasonable conservation, removal of pollution, and sensible reuse. Beyond that, what of billions without adequate water and the burning of wood indoors for heat.
The whole lot of climate science should be reduced to zero public funding.
pft (17:55:34) :
He then published it elsewhere and never submitted another paper to.
It just so turns out that Einstein was wrong in that paper, and that the reviewer was right in criticizing it. Peer-review ‘worked’ for the first submission and failed for the second one.
Before ~1950 there was a sort of peer-review because younger scientists would often first send their paper to established and respected ‘elder statesmen’ of their field for comments.
Actually I am a biological scientist as well. Surface temperature measurement data should be a straightforward affair statistically, compared to our type of data with mind boggling variables. The surface temperature variables appear to be standarization/calibration of thermometers, placement, cherry picked start and end dates etc, not complicated at all. The real natural temperature is that measured in NON_URBAN areas and would represent what is really happening plus of course the satellite data. What’s the problem? Answer = an agenda. Actually you do find the same issue with ie companies trying to show a drug effect, but there seems to much more strict compliance issues than with “climate research” where it seems anything goes….
vg,
You omitted one crucial fact – that a temperature measurement is an intensive variable which is used to factor an extensive variable to produce a sensibly countable number. You cannot compute statistics on intensive variables that are physically meaningful. All intensive variables are qualitative assessments of some object in comparison to a previously established benchmark. They are rankings along some arbitrary scale, and not an absolute measurement of some physical property.
In terms of physical reality, a temperature measurement is used to “weight” or factor a volume of physical matter – in this case a volume of air – to produce a heat or energy content value which can then be manipulated mathematically to produce physically meaningful statistics.
However the process of analysing raw temperature measurements in isolation is as physically relevant as calculating an average telephone number from a page of the local telephone directory. Mathematically possible but physically nonsensical.
This criticism is directed at the temperature data collected from earthly surfaced based thermometers, not from the temperature data collected by the various remote satellite systems that Roy Spencer, to give one example, analyses.
The problem with surface temperature measurements is the ignorance of the physics underlying it. Put simply, a land based temperature measurement is an arbitrary measurement of two physical objects, the thermometer and the object it is in physical contact, and thus thermal equilibrium, with.
It’s an ignorance of these basic physical facts that occurs in those who populate the social sciences, and who then exported that ignorance to the physical sciences they have invaded, Unfortunately many scientists in the physical ones also don’t understand the difference between intensive and extensive variables.
As noted earlier, ‘this “betrayal of the principles of science” became the standard mode of operation (SOP) in the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and in our space agency (NASA) long before the current climategate scandal.
Since the time of the 1969 Apollo Mission to the Moon, NAS and NASA successfully distorted and manipulated space age data that might expose the myth of the Hydrogen-filled Sun.’
One example is Dr. Carl Rouse. Dr. Rouse had a PhD degree in astrophysics from CalTech, but he was an honest scientist who had evidence of the Sun’s iron-rich interior. He was therefore sidelined.
For a brief summary of Dr. Rouse’s research: http://tinyurl.com/y9o99y9
The findings by Dr. Rouse and I were opposed not only by NAS (the National Academy of Sciences), but also by INAP (the International Academy of Propaganda)- an international alliance of politicians, scientists & publishers that promote propaganda to divert the attention away from empirical facts,
Climategate is just the visible tip of a very dirty iceberg.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA PI for Apollo
Emeritus Professor of
Nuclear & Space Studies
Nick (22:39:41):
Concerning the generation of the ‘hockey stick’ from tree-ring proxy data, you assert;
“It boils down to the interpretation of “climate responses”; Costella interprets this as not showing evidence of warming. I argue,given the detail Funkhouser gives, that it can be interpreted as not showing evidence of any consistent signals useful for any interpretation-’Valeri didn’t find any great climate responses either’ writes Funkhouser. It’s dud material. Not a concealed ‘null’ result, but no result at all.”
No! That is factually not correct. It was a “concealed ‘null’ result” that was presented as a conclusion of a positive result. Importantly, any attempt to show it was a “concealed ‘null’ result” was ignored and/or rejected.
John P Costella explains this on page 48 of his excellent essay where he comments on the email from Phil Jones concerning the refusal of Mann, Bradley and Hughes to provide the source data and codes they used to generate the ‘hockey stick’ in their 1998 and 1999 papers.
This issue is directly relevant to the nature of the contents of IPCC reports which is (at last) obtaining public scrutiny.
In my peer review for the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) I made the same points as Costella concerning the ‘hockey stick’, but my review comment was ignored. (My review comments total over 30 A4 pages and they were all ignored).
The pertinent review comment (on the Second Draft) which I presented – but which was ignored – said;
“Start Page SPM-9: Start Line 21
End Page SPM-9: End Line 24
This paragraph is grossly misleading and must be replaced. The following replacement is the minimum required to correct the error in the TAR.
“The SAR had reported that temperatures of the late twentieth century are similar to or lower than temperatures 1000 years ago. The TAR placed emphasis on the work of Mann et al. that indicated very little variability in NH temperatures over the last 1000 years with consistently low temperature until a temperature rise began around 1900. This finding of Mann et al. seemed to refute the large climate variability previously reported in many places including the SAR. However, since the TAR several studies have provided doubt to that work of Mann et al.. Many studies provide data that conflict with the findings of that work of Mann et al. (e.g. Beltrami et al) (ref. Beltrami et al “Long-term tracking of climate change by underground temperatures”, Geophysical Research Letters v.12 (2005) ) and indicate that the report of climate variability in the SAR was correct. In 2005 McIntyre and McKitrick published two papers that together provide a complete refutation of that work of Mann et al. (ref. McIntyre S & McKitrick R, Energy & Environment, v 16, no.1 (2005)) (2005), Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 32, No. 3, (2005)). But, perhaps the most important of their studies of that work of Mann et al. was their publication in 2003 (ref. McIntyre S & McKitrick R, Energy & Environment, v 24, pp 751-771 (2003)) that showed it is not possible to replicate the work of Mann et al. There are several reasons for the inability to replicate this work of Mann et al.; not least that Mann refuses to reveal his source codes. The inability to replicate this work of Mann et al. means it has no scientific worth: i.e. this work of Mann et al. is anecdote of similar kind to a report of a ghost sighting. Hence, the IPCC now apologises for including it in the TAR. The IPCC will now disregard this work of Mann et al. and recommends that all others should also disregard it until it can be – and has been – independently replicated.” ”
Richard
Nick (19:05:18) :
“Is such a conclusion possible, from just one email?”
There are over a thousand emails that were dumped online [here’s one source]. Dr Costello selected only a relative handful to make his argument.
You could read them all, then make your own argument that it’s all a misunderstanding. I’m sure the principal actors would be deeply appreciative.
I find the following quote from the full essay seems to say it all:
“We will, sadly, see that this fundamental scientific flaw” [hiding negative results] “– which, in and of itself, is sufficient to render the evidence for climate change completely unreliable and scientifically worthless — is one that runs throughout the entire Climategate saga.”
The analogy to the criminal justice system used in this story is more apt the other way around: The “evidence” that scientists “”tampered with the data”” has been obtained (or at the very least released) illegally, and should therefore be discarded in concluding anything about the guilt of climate scientists.
RE: Bert Verheggen (04:48:26)
I do not believe “guilt of the climate scientists” is the issue here. I believe we have ‘reasonable evidence’ to conclude that their work cannot be accepted as valid science. No one has intimated that the Climategate files have been fabricated or modified. In this case, I believe these scientists must bear the full burden of proof before the world can accept the conclusions of their work.
Any prosecutor would be required prove these scientists guilty of criminal activity beyond any reasonable doubt on the basis of legal evidence. That may not be possible.
Bart Verheggen (04:48:26),
You make an assumption based on facts not in evidence when you claim that the leaked emails were obtained or released “illegally.” There is simply no evidence to back up your opinion.
I see the strong likelihood that someone on the inside collated and posted the emails, or simply downloaded them from an FOIA folder. There were also warnings given to not leave such information on open servers. If information is posted on line, downloading it is not theft. Nothing was taken, it was simply copied. Surely you are aware of the “CENSORED” file that Steve McIntyre located on line and downloaded, which led to the embarrassing falsification of the MBH hypothesis? If copying on line files is illegal, why was McIntyre never charged with anything?
As just one example of motive, if you were the scientist who was openly discussing the issue with a reviewer in a professional manner, and you received this kind of slap down from Michael Mann, wouldn’t you at least consider the option of showing the world what goes on in the CRU? [This is an example. I am not saying or implying that this is the leaker, only that the young Michael Mann arrogantly steps on a lot of toes – and people living in glass houses shouldn’t be throwing stones; retribution is far too easy.]
Furthermore, the work product of the Climate Research Unit is publicly funded by taxpayers. It concerns the weather and the climate, not nuclear defense secrets. By what stretch of the imagination is publicly funded information proprietary?
The biggest red herring argument in the entire debate is being made by those trying to make the issue one of “stealing” the emails, in an obvious attempt to shift the focus to unproven speculation, rather than engaging in an analysis of the wrongdoing exposed in real evidence: the emails themselves.
So for the sake of an honest debate, let’s forget how the emails came to be exposed, until solid evidence emerges. As of now, that is a peripheral issue with no proof either way. Instead, let’s begin with the unrefuted evidence contained in the 1,000+ emails themselves. Dr. Costella argues that scientific misconduct is rampant among the alarmists, and he backs it up with numerous concrete examples.
Your only answer is to speculate that the emails were stolen. That is an extremely weak response.