Thanks to the theft and publication of years worth of email
from the Climate Research Unit (CRU), a major scientific center devoted to
climate science, we now have an interesting picture of the
at-times-questionable conduct of a number of top researchers in the
field. It would be hard to add much to the incredible volume of commentary
and analysis to which the leaked/hacked CRU emails have been subjected. The
media and blogosphere are abuzz with commentary, analysis, and introspection
from all corners. So far there are two major narratives:
·
What does this mean for the debate over climate
change itself? If you are a hardcore skeptic or conspiracy theorist, this is a eureka
moment, revealing once and for all the vast global plot
to pull one over on humanity. If you are a true believer, you cast the emails as
a not-so-flattering view of the messy business of science, with no impact
whatsoever on the credibility or veracity of human induced climate change.
·
Cause for revisiting the
values and professional norms of scientific research,
particularly peer review, transparency, and openness. In this discussion, we
see that the scientists have violated cherished norms by which science
proceeds. Climate Audit,
seen as a haven for skeptics, has been fighting for better data access for
years. Real Climate argues
that the community has made an effort, deflecting from accusations of cover-up.
As for peer review, Roger Pielke has a good post on
the role of peer review, and the way in which climate change politics has
led some scientists to stray from this traditional model:
The
sustainability of climate science depends upon our ability to distinguish the
health of the scientific enterprise [meaning in part the integrity of peer
review] from the politics of climate change. The need to respond to climate
change (which I support) does not justify sacrificing standards of scientific
integrity for political ends. In fact, as the events of the past week show,
when standards of scientific integrity are compromised, the political
consequences can be double edged.
Yes, a lapse in scientific integrity is bad for science,
but it's worth thinking about why it's also bad for us, the broader public. We
need to remember that this work is done almost entirely on our dime. In that
sense, the public more or less owns science, much the same way
we own a democracy. The public invests in science for a
variety of reasons, and they have a right to expect not just results and
advances, but that science fulfill the values that underpin our
investment.
I would like to think that scientists who receive my tax
dollars are conforming to the norms of peer review, and pursuing transparency
and openness. As Mike Hulme points out over at DotEarth (my
emphasis):
The key
lesson to be learned is that not only must scientific knowledge about climate
change be publicly owned — the I.P.C.C. does a fairly good job of this
according to its own terms — but the very practices of scientific
enquiry must also be publicly owned, in the sense of being open and
trusted.
But I also want to be sure that they're not fighting an
ideological war from their cubicle at NASA (I suppose that sort of thing is
reserved for the DOD and its contractors!). The Wall Street
Journal discusses the efforts of scientists to
delete emails about their research, along with other apparent attempts
to withhold data:
...these
scientists feel the public doesn't have a right to know the basis for their
climate-change predictions, even as their governments prepare staggeringly
expensive legislation in response to them.
However,
we do now have hundreds of emails that give every appearance of testifying to
concerted and coordinated efforts by leading climatologists to fit the data to
their conclusions while attempting to silence and discredit their
critics. In the department of inconvenient truths, this one surely
deserves a closer look by the media, the U.S. Congress and other investigative
bodies.
Whatever you think about climate change, and whatever you
think about the motives of the WSJ, I hope that you agree with that
point.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute provides another
example. In a decidedly (and characteristically) unconstructive move,
they announced that
they are suing NASA for their failure to comply with Freedom of
Information Act requests for documents related to the conduct of researchers
who blog for Real Climate:
The
information sought is directly relevant to the exploding “Climategate” scandal
revealing document destruction, coordinated efforts in the U.S. and UK to avoid
complying with both countries’ freedom of information laws, and apparent and
widespread intent to defraud at the highest levels of international climate
science bodies. ...[This is] inappropriate behavior for a taxpayer-funded
employee, particularly on taxpayer time.
Whatever headaches might have been temporarily avoided by
obstruction up until now will surely be multiplied as a result of legal actions
such as this. Obviously the motives of CEI are, as always, to detract from the
credibility of climate science writ large, but that should not detract from the
legitimacy of their core question, which relates to the conduct of public
employees who should be accountable to taxpayers.
The CRU emails highlight the fact that climate science
needs to get its house in order with respect to its own internal dynamics,
restoring mutual respect and professional integrity. But it also needs to focus
intently on its relationship to the public--not just in terms of communicating
effectively to the masses, but also ensuring accountability to the boss: us.
About the Author: Ryan Meyer is a CSPO graduate research associate and a
doctoral candidate in ASU's School of Life Sciences.
