It never ceases to amaze how quickly the rust accrues on the mental gears involved in writing. As you might guess from a quick look at the date of the previous posts, I find myself in such a state. And I hesitate to grind all of the rust off, knowing that the hellstorm of finals is about to descend; I would perhaps be better served to conserve the energy for dodging chunks of brimstone as they rain down on me.

Nevertheless, we must often do what is right, even when it is not expedient. And speaking of inconvenient truths and the end of the world, let’s talk global warming for a moment. Perhaps you have heard of the recent scandal involving emails from the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University. I find this response from some of the actors involved at RealClimate.org to be the most revealing.

The author correctly points out that the materials in question do not show a conspiracy, that give-and-take is normal in science, and that the scientific community (he may mean simply “the global warming community”) is not the monolith as which it is sometimes presented. But he misses several points. For example, just as he cites the non-monolithic nature of science, he then reverts to claims of “scientific consensus,” claiming monolithic agreement on global warming (and thus justification for marginalizing dissent—the stuff that makes monoliths into polyliths).

And this goes to the heart of the matter—what the emails and documents DO show.

The author is again correct to point out that the emails reveal human frustration and aspiration, but turns a blind eye to precisely what makes the emails so stunning: that they show humans acting politically. They show humans conniving and scheming (to deny those who disagree a chance to put their case before the public), engaging in ad hominem attacks rather than engaging evidence or arguments, highly conscious of and attempting to manipulate perception. When this happens in a campaign, one is hardly shocked; but these are scientists who claim to be above such petty concerns. Note even the tone of the response and the comments—it is still dismissive, refusing to even consider the possibility that one might have erred, that all those who disagree must be either stupid or malicious.

This is what confirms what Patrick Michaels, Stephen MacIntyre, Bjorn Lomborg, and even Michael Crichton (among others) have been saying. I know Michaels and Lomborg both agree that global warming is happening—they are hardly “deniers.” Their argument has not been that it is false, but that people with an interest—a dog in the hunt, as we say—have been keeping a thumb on the scales (and pretending not to own a dog at all).

This is what comes as a shock to most people, including some scientists apparently, who are of the notion that scientists are pure, untainted, impartial, and fair. They can’t have met many scientists. We all have our theories, and we all advocate for them to the best of our abilities. As in the adversarial courtroom, this is what science requires of us—in the resulting clash, whatever is left standing should be the truth. And as in the adversarial courtroom, there are rules of engagement that both sides must observe. For example, persons are supposed to be out-of-bounds; only ideas and evidence should be sent into the ring.

Unlike the courtroom, however, this arena (at least potentially) lacks the judge or referee. Theoretically, we are supposed to referee each other—pointing out flaws to the public we seek to convince. I once knew a hockey player who could make someone next to him fall down without himself appearing to move. Science has become so specialized that the referee can no longer tell when there are dirty tricks. And when that information asymmetry exists between the public and scientists, it becomes easy to make claims based on authority, not evidence—and easy to become that clever hockey player. So that when the “scientific consensus” claim that gives legitimacy in the public eye (and thus a claim on scarce resources) is threatened, the response is to knee-cap the scientists who exist as proof that there is no consensus. To label them “deniers,” so that they become easily dismissed as a category, and one need not consider or rebut their arguments or their evidence.

Of course, the underlying problem is that the public is more concerned with appearances, and rarely has the attention span to consider the whole picture. The average person does not deal well with ambiguity, with holding that things can be partially correct but still flawed. We see this in the heroification of public figures, in the partisan point-scoring of political debate. In fact, there is only one place the average person is willing to accept that something is partially correct—in the grading of their answers to an exam.

But then, scientists don’t seem to be doing necessarily better on that score. Note the response to the RealClimate post of the “thanks for the response, now I have something to tell the doubters in my department” variety. It would seem that the debate has largely degenerated into “Nuh-uh.” “Uh-huh.” “So not.” “So so.”
So-so indeed.