If you are unaware, a few weeks ago someone hacked into the servers of a climatologist research group and released emails and other documents that have created quite a stir. You can read about it on wikipedia or a news article. In light of the current summit in Copenhagen, I thought it was time to put down a few thoughts inspired by the recent events and general anthropogenic global warming controversy.
1: I am glad that my research is of no particular interest to more than a few dozen people and will certainly not be driving any governmental policy decisions. I can see plenty of analogues to the controversial e-mails in my own archives. Phil Jones wrote about a “trick” to “hide” a data anomaly. I’ve gone back and forth with my co-authors about the best way to present data; a logarithmic scale is much more informative, but they insisted that a linear scale was necessary for people just glancing through to realize how impressive the results were. Michael Mann urged colleagues to stop publishing at a journal that he believed was publishing politically-motivated articles. Someone I work with warned others in a specific research community when a new journal in that field was created with an editorial board full of people who had never published work in that field in any well-known venue. I would not care to have to explain myself to raging hordes convinced I was guilty of fraud.
2: Although I do not find much damning evidence in the leaked documents, some of the other things I have read about are disturbing. In a relatively unimportant field like mine it would be wrong to refuse to provide my data and methods to anyone who asked. The credibility of any result is directly proportional to the ability of others to reproduce it. In a field that will shape society for the next decade, it is downright immoral to hold back this information for intellectual property reasons. (For the record, I know of two researchers unaffiliated with me who are using my code. Feel free to download ch-htn-tools-1.0.tar.gz if you would like.)
3: It is probably the best that can be done under the circumstances, but it seems that most of what climatologists do is only science by a very broad definition. With data that goes back half a century, proxy data that allows us to guess at much older values but depends on its own set of questionable assumptions, and an extremely complex system that cannot be duplicated and that usually operates on a scale of millennia, testing hypotheses becomes rather difficult. If a theory has no predictive power that can be validated, then it is of limited use. (My own work and much computer science research can similarly be derided as unscientific. In my world the really interesting thing is the invention of a way to solve a problem, and then we tack on experimental studies of that methodology to add a veneer of sciency-ness.)
4: This is but one of many examples, but it is truly amazing how often people believe that they are more qualified than experts to have an opinion on a topic. I have an opinion on most everything (as you readers know), but I do not assume myself to be superior to those who actually know what they are talking about. Climate change is indeed up for debate, as is just about anything else. But that does not mean it is a matter of opinion, or that what is true for me might not be true for you. You can believe that scientists are wrong, or are falsifying global warming to usher in a worldwide fascist regime, or secretly know that vaccines cause autism but are bribed into lying by pharmaceutical companies. But unless you can offer actual evidence supporting one of those theories, it is not clear to me why anyone should care what you believe about it.
5: As per #4, you should not care what I think about climate change since I am far from an expert on the subject, but I will tell you anyway. If the majority of experts in the field believe that global temperatures are rising and that carbon dioxide emissions are the primary cause (they do), then I do too. The fact that it seems colder where I am than last year is not strong enough evidence to discredit their years of work, nor is the fact that the climate has (very slowly) changed in the past without human intervention. This does not mean that I think the joint statement from the IPCC has it all figured out; just that they have come to the most reasonable conclusion based on the available data. What, if any, policy changes should be enacted is an entirely different and unscientific question. That leads to my next thought.
6: If, as seems to be the consensus, we are already in a bad position and getting worse everyday, it is going to require some serious sacrifices to avert disaster. In my (non-expert) opinion, the kind of policies that would be necessary to reverse such a trend would never be accepted. There is simply no way that developing countries will agree not to use early industrial technology unless we either find a reasonably priced alternative energy source (looks unlikely in the near future), give them absolutely enormous sums of money (not going to happen), or bomb them into extinction (not exactly a positive outcome). First-world countries should be able to hold the line on emissions relatively painlessly, but making significant cuts will be impossible without most Americans giving up luxuries they have become accustomed to, and I do not see the political will to do so. If the climatologists are correct, the next two decades are going to be very interesting times.
7: Finally, I do not think the leaked CRU documents reveal any egregious ethical violations. But suppose you believed firmly and completely that the world as you knew it was going to be destroyed unless you did something. Would you be willing to commit fraud if necessary to avert this disaster? I have to think the answer is yes. Replace fraud with any other moral, legal, or ethical lapse and I think the answer remains the same. Surety can be rather frightening. I was reading somewhere else (sorry, I no longer recall where, nor looked for proof) that a scientist was discouraged from doing some certain research because it might produce results that contradict the consensus on global warming and that to risk this would be immoral. What kind of nonsense is that? But it makes perfect sense if you already know that you are right, which is an entirely unscientific mindset.