THE STATE OF SCIENCE: Has prolonged scrutiny of climate science revealed more about the way science works than scientists themselves might like? Matthew Bailes thinks so.
Although often ignorant of the details, the general public marvel at the genius of intellectual giants such as Einstein and the purity of his scientific endeavours.
Time has shown that all 100 were wrong and that the book was propaganda. Many of the 100 were just bad scientists; some had opposing theories; many were commenting on a topic outside their own areas of expertise; and some probably possessed ulterior racist motives. But the lesson here is that it’s possible to find 100 experts to criticise what is a valid scientific theory.
Modern experimental science
Modern experimental science often requires assembling large teams and expensive infrastructure, and that requires political lobbying. Research empires are built upon grants that demand the marketing of ideas, outstanding track records and scientific publicity.
For some scientists the publish/publicise/grant cycle becomes intoxicating, leading to an exponential increase in the dimension of their empire, but also a temptation to engage in unethical behaviour. Some falter.
When exposed, all of science loses credibility, and rightfully becomes vulnerable to attack.
Big prizes and scientific downfall
The biggest breakthroughs (and hence prizes) in science often involve radical paradigm shifts and vehement scientific debates. It is a high-stakes game.
As in a high-profile medieval trial, leading scientists often act as defenders of the faith or heretics. Ideally the evidence is judged and community consensus dictates the winner. This process advances science. If conducted appropriately, both combatants are ultimately respected for their roles.
Unfortunately, the losers sometimes refuse to acknowledge their victors. Bizarrely, they start to only see the evidence in support of their own theory and become completely oblivious to the truth.
It is almost as if their theory is inseparable from their own feeling of self-worth, and to acknowledge their error would negate all the positive contributions they made to the earlier debate. These scientists often become strange recluses who congregate with others who have also failed.
They start to see conspiracies where none exist; some even create their own journals, write non-peer-reviewed articles and books and rebel against the scientific establishment.
The lack of peer review removes any checks on their evidence and they lose all scientific perspective. Their writings become propaganda. When recruits are needed to attack any consensus view in science, they are eager volunteers ready for revenge.
The current consensus view of climate scientists is that rising CO₂ levels due to man-made activity are leading to a change in global temperature that, if left unchecked, could be catastrophic.
We know the planet’s climate changed before mankind could have had significant effect upon it from historical temperature records that show ice ages as well as warmer periods.
So the question is not whether the climate changes or not, but whether the current changes are both significant and being caused by mankind.
Extrapolations of climate models are “model-dependent”, because they, like the earth, are so complicated, yielding a range of potential impacts upon our future.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was the United Nation’s response to the potential climate crisis.
Unfortunately there are few parallel organisations in other areas of science and scientists love to challenge each other’s theories and data. They often fiercely resist documents meant to represent the view of the entire community and bristle against being told what they are collectively saying. As a result some legitimately feel the need to disengage and protest.
Conspiracy theorists believe climate scientists have yielded to the temptation of the “dark side” and are vastly exaggerating the effects of climate change to bolster themselves, their empires, and their own importance, thus invalidating any evidence that man-made global warming is real.
The increased scrutiny of climate science has revealed more about the way science works than scientists themselves might like. All scientists compete for funding, and the more compelling the evidence and story, the greater the chance of success.
It would be unthinkable that climate scientists would not, at least subconsciously, be using the potential catastrophic consequences of global warming to maximise their funding.
But scientific heroism is ultimately found in revealing the truth.
The professional motivation for most scientists is to make positive contributions that they are recognised for by their peers. If there was some glaring error or conspiracy in temperature measurements, climate models and CO₂ levels, there is ample opportunity for glory by revealing it in peer-reviewed journals.
To deny the truth ultimately makes you look stupid, and it becomes more and more obvious as time goes by, as instrumentation improves, computers get faster, and more of your peers check your results. For most scientists, ultimately their reputation is everything.
Bad scientific practice doesn’t equate to peer-reviewed evidence. The idea that non-specialists, like retired engineers or lawyers, can waltz into any field, be it astronomy or climate change, make a few quick back of the envelope calculations or statistically-flawed deductions and “prove” the opposite of what experts with well-funded teams are repeatedly demonstrating is comical.
The “dark side” applies and appeals to people on both sides of the climate change debate. Writing up some bad science that gets fan-mail from laymen, some prominent failed scientists or publicity from journalists with a cynical or sceptical bent, can be just as addictive as those trapped in the more mainstream scientists’ publish/fame/grant cycle.
It is nice to have people saying you are very clever and to appear in the media, so why not do some more “research”? But oh dear, what if it shows your earlier claims were wrong?
Luckily if you are ignorant enough you can do some more bad science and find the two-sigma result you were looking for.
Can you get these findings published or peer-reviewed by an unbiased and anonymous referee? Probably not. But who needs conventional recognition of your work when a journalist or climate-denial blog will give you the attention you crave?
After all, the climate change conspiracy would have ensured your paper got rejected from any of the established peer-reviewed journals. Right?
In the 1950s, long before climate change was fashionable, scientists at Mauna Loa were measuring CO₂ levels. They saw an annual cycle, and noted CO₂ levels were rising every year.