Climate-gate, skepticism, and science

We've seen a rash of news stories, blogs, and discussion about the "climate-gate" scandal that has evolved out of a series of hacked emails that shed a less than flattering light on a few of the scientists who are associated with the IPCC. (*essentially a large, diverse, international group of scientists whose combined submissions and reviews makeup the body of work which the worlds governments use as the "bible" for the status of current scientific thought into the climate issue)

While the methods by which these email communications were retrieved were less than savory, and represent a scandal unto themselves, there is no denying that what they brought to the surface was enlightening.

The larger scandal here in my opinion however, is that it has been used as a means to try and discredit those hundreds of other leading scientists by holding this up as an example for why climate change is a "conspiracy".  Climate change has reached the lofty levels of divisiveness heretofore reserved for the likes of Evolution theory.  It has become a calling card of the conservative movement to position it as a liberal agenda.  And buried in that positioning is my issue with this debate.

It should be noted that I consider myself a skeptic in general, not of climate change, but in the sense that I require some burden of proof and logic to be associated with my beliefs.  To me, that means science.  What seems to be escaping many people (or at least conveniently ignored) is that science is a living, evolving instrument.  We take the best information we have available, we test it, we test it a little more, we find conclusions, we publish our findings, and the larger scientific community then has the opportunity to disprove or further our findings.  And on it goes, this "circle of science".  This means at times new information will come along (it usually does) which pushes our knowledge further, and we update our collective scientific belief system.  There will always be those still seeking to prove/disprove one theory or another, always some holdout standing in the face of all opposing data.  But in science, that's a good thing, a necessary thing.  Without it, some of our greatest discoveries would never have occurred.  Underlying all of this, is the need to convince the scientific majority with enough irrefutable information to sway them to your revised theory.  This can be painful, particularly if your life's work has been wrapped up in a particular area of study which was just blown out of the water.  Luckily, the scientists themselves are a pretty competitive bunch and won't let each other get away with attempts at bad science for the sake of ones ego (some might say they revel in the opportunity to disprove a competitor).

Here lies my problem with the current rash of climate change skepticism.  The way I see it:

  • Is climate change being refuted by some new accepted understanding by the collective scientific community? No (collective being the key word here)
  • Is all of the science put forth by the hundreds of other scientists involved in the IPCC now suspect due to the information brought to light in "climate-gate"? No
  • Does "climate-gate" represent a mass conspiracy by all of these other scientists?  Anyone who believes this (apparently quite a few people) really does not understand the community makeup of the IPCC or the vastness of scale and influence it would require to make such a thing happen.  It would make faking a moon landing or executing a president look like childs play.
  • Is climate change irrefutable? Technically, nothing can be claimed to be irrefutable where scientific theory is concerned.  But it's safe to say that climate change itself is occurring as there *are* enough irrefutable planetary "reactions" to make that a foregone conclusion.
  • Is the cause (i.e. Nature vs. Man-made) of client change irrefutable? No.  From a causation standpoint my question would be "what does it matter"?  Other than trying to disprove someone scientifically, which is fine with me, it has nothing to do with our reaction to it.  It matters that we understand what we can do for mitigation purposes, but not from a argument for or against mitigation. (unless your argument is, god made nature, nature made climate change, who are we to interfere.  In which case you are already beyond my ability to communicate with constructively anyway as there is no way to debate "Gods Will")
  • Is the extent of client change irrefutable? No.  This is really the million dollar question.  Regardless of the cause, if the extent will be such that it bears mitigating then that is what we must do.  

All one can do is make decisions based on the best available information.  What you cannot do is say "we don't know everything, so let's put off making decisions until we do".  The question is where you draw that line in the sand before making your decisions.  We've all seen examples of good intentions gone awry, look at forestation practices prior to our understanding of the value that the forest fires provided.  So you are well within your rights to question "do we know enough to spend those billions of dollars?".  That is a very different thing however than the shameful practice of accusing a large group of scientists slaving over an issue of being liars involved in a mass conspiracy.

My argument would be that neither you, nor I, are equipped to answer that question.  The scientists are.  As of yet they are still firmly in line with climate change.  But to try and position an entire scientific community as conspiracists spreading lies, and then attempting to use selective science to prove your own points, all within the same breath seems ignorant at best, and disingenuous at worst.  Truth matters.  And the more we play political distraction games and attempt to bias the public against science in general the more it becomes another ideological battle.  Which is exactly where we've found ourselves.  I recommend you do a search online for "climate-gate", etc. and just see how many times you find words like "climate religion", "indoctrination", etc. applied to those who believe in climate change.  A transparent attempt to influence the religious among us to associate a belief in climate change as a move away from traditional religious beliefs.  Well, transparent to me anyway, apparently it's just kool-aid to be consumed for many out there.  Why would one belief have anything to do with another? No reason.  But if you're looking for a cause to pit against the other side, and your side happens to be stocked with religious conservatives then it's the game you play to insure the proper fervor and support from your community.

If you want to be skeptical of climate change, more power to you.  I'm not trying to lean you in either direction.  But be just as skeptical about whose information you choose to consume and the weight you give it.  If it's coming from Fox News or a conservative leaning blog I would hope you would apply the same skepticism that you would information gleaned from Tree Huggers For Climate Change (that's a made up organization, at least I hope it is).  Independent thought is difficult to find these days, but with a modicum of effort you can at least find your truths somewhere in the middle of the voices screaming the loudest.  Science is, and will be, the best hope at finding truth.  Yes, there are those few in the scientific community who may hope to distort it, but there are far more who will discredit them at the first opportunity.  If you allow the belief that the community as a whole is spreading disinformation, it conveniently allows you to be selective about the information you choose to accept as "factual", but it destroys any attempt at real credibility.

 

- @techguerilla

Posted on Monday, Feb 15, 2010 by