ClimateGate
Once upon a time, I was a research scientist. I worked in biology and human health labs for almost ten years before changing careers to count carbon.
As my current job began and I was asked to give presentations on carbon accounting and climate change, I knew I had better work on really understanding the issues so that I could explain them to others. Uncomfortable with fear-mongering or regurgitating environmental gossip, I vowed to get to the bottom of the science behind climate change so that I could present it in a clear and unbaised way.
I read journals about ice cores, tree rings, atmospheric versus surface temperatures, ocean currents, sun spots, and the history of the industrial revolution. The laboratory tests showing that carbon dioxide and other gases could absorb specific wavelengths of energy and re-emit them as heat were solid and beyond reproach. Even the observation that certain periods were warmer than others, our current era being one of them, seemed well supported. I accepted the correlation between CO2 levels and temperature as just that – correlations: indicative of some relationship, but certainly not a settled cause-and-effect.
The great catch-22 in many scientific pursuits is that you can’t do tests on the system. You can understand pieces with well controlled experiments, or you can observe and document the system, but the two don’t always relate in a predictable way. To develop a drug, we utilize a series of proxies (test tube, cell culture, mouse model, human trials) and hope that each of them gives us a reasonable ability to predict how the body will respond. I don’t need to tell you how many test tube successes fail to reach market, or even how many drugs that pass clinical trials are recalled for their adverse effects.
And that’s where I started to get uncomfortable with the climate change science. I looked at the lab tests, atmospheric observations, and range of climate models. And then I heard that “the debate on climate change was over.“ Huh?
“Over” means that the conclusions are settled, that there is no need for further study, no allowance for new evidence no matter how compelling. “Over” is not in a scientist’s vocabulary. It’s a political word.
I can remember a few occasions in my research career when we would make a discovery that contradicted the entrenched dogma. We would discover some new signaling pathway, or a genetic difference that flew in the face of a competitor’s conclusions. Those experiments and reports were the most difficult, because you had to work even more carefully to preserve your reputation while you openly contradicted a peer.
If the finding was particularly controversial, or disagreed with the leader in an influential lab, you would have to develop a strategy for publication. Perhaps the competing scientist is an editor for the best journal and would never accept your article. Perhaps the reviewers demand greater proof from you than was required from others. Science quickly becomes political, and it takes an exceptional person to navigate both waters with agility.
When the ClimateGate story broke, revealing the hacked emails of a group of scientists at the University of East Anglia, I was captivated. Here were the inner thoughts, dealings, and perhaps schemes of the climate change cognoscenti. You can see them struggle with evidence, bicker with peers, and ultimately, put on a united front for the public.
And that’s why this story is so fascinating for people. Everyone assumes science is somehow super-human, divorced from the egos, angling, and petty arguments of the “average man.” I’m here to tell you, the emperor looks just like you under his clothes. And I think it’s good for people to understand this when they hear the phrase “scientists have shown” on the radio or from a friend. Scientists, while doing their best, are neither omniscient nor infallible.
Do the ClimateGate emails mean global warming is a complete hoax? No. The fundamentals still stand that certain gases in the atmosphere trap heat. We need to continue working to understand what their effects will be on a global scale. Our fate may be better than predicted, or it may be worse, but the debate is certainly not over.
Should we stop our work to minimize greenhouse gas emissions? No again. As any good insurance agent will tell you, if the impact of a catastrophe is great enough, even if its probability is low, you should still prepare for it. We humans tend to be bad at understanding and managing risk.
What if new emails prove all the data were made up? I, for one, hope that’s true and that we won’t have to contend with climate change. And if that happens, I will still continue my work on energy savings and efficiency because there are myriad other reasons to end our dependence on fossil fuels like avoiding wars, limiting pollution, and saving money.
I know this stance may be unpopular with the politically motivated, but that’s my take. I look forward to hearing your thoughts in the comments section.
Can't get enough? Try these related posts:
Pingback: Copenhagen