Climate Change Needs Real Science and Real Debate

The recent release of over 3,000 emails and documents from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UK), has climate change experts silent and circling the wagons, fearing the impact such information could have on both their grants and professional reputations. The email exchanges portray what looks like an attempt by some of the world’s leading “experts” in climate change to silence criticism, to muzzle debate, to manipulate data and generally to politicize the science of climate change. On the other hand, the news has given voice to the so-called climate change agnostics and “deniers”, albeit not widely in “the mainstream media.” They proclaim that science on this matter is anything but settled, and possibly a hoax. These skeptics, at least for the moment, have a platform to argue against those who have long predicted the demise of the earth in the absence of significant and costly cuts in greenhouse gas emissions and who have received most of the funding and professional recognition.

What’s in these emails? The Wall Street Journal lets them speak for themselves in an opinion piece “Climate Change and Candor”. The Washington Post, in deciding to editorialize and summarize says the exposed e-mails “reveal an intellectual circle that appears to feel very much under attack and eager to punish its enemies.” George Monbiot’s indictment in the Guardian is even more severe:

“There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request. Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate skeptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.”

These allegations are quite disturbing, because they cast doubt over the state and the integrity of the “scientific research” that supports most of what the public has been told about climate change, in our schools, in our media and by the actions of our government. While people generally skeptical of the climate-change pronouncements feel vindicated by this revelation, some of the public who have endorsed the global warming narrative are shocked.

Evidence that politics has trumped science at one influential institution will only deepen public doubts about the human role in climate change. Is the politicized science at the Climate Research Unit an isolated incident in an otherwise clean body of research indicating human causes for climate change? Or are the leaked e-mails merely the tip of an iceberg, an indicator of a great mass of bad science driven by ideology? Have the skeptics been given a fair hearing? No matter where one stands in the climate debate, these questions need to be answered convincingly in order to garner the public’s support for responsible public policy.

It is critical that those who develop public policy have confidence that the scientific method has been applied without regard to personal biases or a favored narrative. Political influence can corrupt science from both the right and the left. During the George W. Bush Administration, it was alleged that passages in environmental reports were deleted if they supported the “wrong” position. It is a fact that EPA Director Christine Todd Whitman resigned because she would not agree to a new rule allowing large polluting plants to make major alterations without installing costly new pollution controls, presumably a politically motivated favor to the energy sector.

Science can only be advanced based on a strict adherence to rigorous debate, integrity of the scientific method and an honest and thorough review of both data and analysis. A review of the Climate Research Unit emails not only shows a contempt for those questioning the methodology of this scientific research, they also point to a potentially fraudulent practice of destroying data, and obstructing any number of Freedom of Information requests by various parties to secure the data. This is inconsistent with what scientific research should be all about.

The great advantage of the scientific method is that it is not prejudiced and the results obtained are repeatable. Most middle-school children who are introduced to the scientific method learn that the process starts with an observation about nature or the universe. A tentative hypothesis is developed based on what has been observed. Then predictions are made based on the hypothesis. Data and observations are collected in order to test the prediction and modify the hypothesis based on the actual results of the experiment or data collection. Hypothesis continue to be re-evaluated and data collected until there are no discrepancies between that which is hypothesized and that which is observed. Rather than adhere to the rigorous conventions of the scientific method, the leaked e-mails, reports the Wall Street Journal, show that “scientists appear to urge each other to present a ‘unified’ view on the theory of man-made climate change while discussing the importance of the ‘common cause’; to advise each other on how to smooth over data so as not to compromise the favored hypothesis; to discuss ways to keep opposing views out of leading journals; and to give tips on how to ‘hide the decline’ of temperature in certain inconvenient data.”

The public might reasonably question the “science” of man’s detrimental impact on global climate change. Have opposing views been carefully reviewed? Has the other side been given a fair shake? For example, Richard Lindzen, of MIT, has concluded, based on fifteen years worth of actual data “that the effect of carbon dioxide on temperature is small and …is having very little effect on the climate.” This information should get a full and unbiased review, open and publicly. So should the work of Steve McIntyre, a self-funded self-proclaimed researcher who, if his results are verified, demonstrates that the climate change books have been cooked. Are these two men quacks or sages? A complete, open and ideology-neutral examination of ALL views, the data supporting the views and the research methodology must be undertaken. It is inexplicable why the climate-change experts who “know” mankind is causing global warming would not welcome the opportunity to rebut the argument of the so-called nay-sayers. Ideological takeovers of professional journals smack of cowardice and insecurity and prevent the open competition of ideas that advance everyone’s theory.

In spite of the fact that Climategate serves arguably to enlighten the public of possible fraud used to justify trillions of dollars in new fees and taxes, this “scandal” may also have the “unintended” consequence of causing the public to forsake many good efforts to minimize carbon use, engage in sustainability efforts and continue to be good environmental stewards. No matter what the science ultimately indicates about man’s role in climate change, there must be continued vigilance against pollution threats to our water, our air, and our forests.

If man’s impact on global climate change is faux, we’ve committed unnecessary resources to a problem man cannot effect. If man’s impact on climate change is true, the loss of confidence from these shenanigans may delay very real and necessary steps that mankind must take to combat this serious problem. The call to action must be to find the truth of whether or not man significantly affects climate change and on the basis of what empirical evidence. No agreements based on faulty science should be accepted by the U.S. in Copenhagen.

In a speech discussing the need for better math and science education for our children, President Obama said,

“Because the truth is that promoting science isn’t just about providing resources, it’s about protecting free and open inquiry. It’s about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology.”

The President is correct. The same standard must be demanded in the debate regarding climate change.