Scientific Credibility in Climate Change Research

I've only just read around about the recent "climategate" incident involving some emails exchanged amongst climatologists that offer some rather candid views, critiques... some would say threats against critics of their views. I was at first hesitant to comment on this incident as the politics of it are so heightened. But I think it's a perfect thing to address on this blog, I think that the points I'd like to make are uncontroversial enough and shouldn't be in danger of being misconstrued, and so I'll proceed without too much concern. We'll see what folks think.

To begin, (and I hate prefacing with such a pitifully defensive qualifier) I am not a climate change skeptic. I don't know the first thing about climate change, but the scientific consensus on it strikes me as reasonable enough. So I accept it the same way that I accept other points of scientific consensus, like theories about black holes or relativity. That a lot of climate change skeptics take this incident to be ammunition for their view is beside my point.

That being established, I'll get to it. I think that Christopher Booker's article in the Telegraph about how this is "the worst scientific scandal of our generation" is a good analysis of the problems present in climate change research. Perhaps a bit hyperbolic, but it gets to the point of the concern. A better analysis is offered by Judy Curry, who highlights a lack of transparency and academic tribalism in climate research. These concerns are what really bothers me about "climategate". Without needing to posit a conspiracy to lobby for apocalyptic forecasts, it is obviously highly problematic when research is stifled by the protectionist mentality of those who enjoy prominence in climate change studies.

I will grant that climatologists often have their reasons for dismissing skeptics, and dismissal is a perfectly acceptable response to bad theory or folk science. You see the same sort of thing going on in evolutionary biology as proponents of Intelligent Design are kept outside of the gates of peer reviewed publications. So I don't think the fact in itself of virulent opposition to climate skeptics should be a concern. Indeed, scientific publications should be vigilant about peer review and hold high standards of evidence and argument. That's the whole point.

The waters get muddied, however, when we run across an email correspondence that seems to take a utilitarian approach to such gatekeeping, or that exhibits a suspiciously circular path of experts who advise, approve, and supply data for one another without outside interaction. My concern is not that such a situation demonstrates that anyone is wrong about their climate research. Rather, my concern is that such a situation would make it difficult to verify such errors if they were to arise. And error does arise in scientific endeavor- indeed, the responsive accommodation of such error strikes me as one of the main factors that distinguishes scientific inquiry from dogmatism. But when there is a need to have an outside audit of a scientific process that is supposed to have already internalized such auditing into its own method, it strikes me that we have a serious problem.

Now it seems that major academic institutions agree with me. Penn State has begun an investigation, and Phil Jones of CRU (the one at the heart of the hacked emails) has stepped down temporarily.

The point of this scandal isn't that climate change skeptics have significant scientific evidence to back up their case. I think it's a waste of time to read those who characterize this as a victory for the skeptics. The concern- and really it is a more serious concern- is that the climate change consensus is shooting itself in the foot and making its own standards less reliable, and less defensible against the charges of skeptics. This is a loss not for any particular government policy or lobbying effort (neither depend necessarily upon scientific conclusions), but rather a loss for scientific inquiry itself. And if what results from the scandal is more rigorous scientific standards, I think we will all be better off, whether or not the response to global warming suffers a temporary set-back. Bad as that would be, I'd rather us not move forward recklessly only to face these sorts of obstacles further down the road when the consequences are even more stark.