The Guardian recently published a series of articles on the ClimateGate scandal, which stemmed from emails hijacked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/series/climate-wars-hacked-emails
The series is revealing and sad. It shows what can happen when science collides with politics. The one in this case is complex with results less than completely certain; the other demands simplicity and certitude. No one comes out of these stories untainted.
Unfortunately, the scientists neglected some of the precepts of their profession. They were not always willing to share data, for example, which makes it difficult or impossible to replicate the researchers findings. Unfortunately, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) appears to have produced sloppy work, getting some key facts wrong. That does not those who want to act to reduce mankind's effects on the climate
One could argue that the researchers were provoked. Many of the skeptics are amateurs, others are, in fact, polemicists. The researchers have had to deal with FOIA requests for emails as well as data. Some skeptics clearly have axes to grind and prefer to play "Gotcha" to finding the truth of the matter.
And the truth is not as clear as either side would wish. An important part of the argument relies on times series of estimated temperatures that go back millennia. The evidence comes from data such as the relative size of tree rings, which can stem from causes in addition to temperatures. The climate itself is not easily modeled--many variables are at play when the weather changes. The Guardian series makes the difficulty of the research clear.
That is not to argue that the researchers who argue that man is changing the climate are wrong. They are professionals trained to seek truth, not to polemicize. It is to say that the truth of the matter is less than perfectly clear--on either side. My understanding is that the weight of the evidence lies on the side of climate change: We are fouling our own nest.
That said, research on climate change needs to be conducted with greater care and transparency than it has been. The example of Caesar's wife comes to mind: the work needs to be able to stand up to the strongest scrutiny, because it will get it.
That is not to let the skeptics off the hook. Their own work needs to be examined just as closely as that of their opponents. Their approach should that of the proper scholar: conclusions should reflect truth, not prejudice. These issues are too important to all of us for a different attitude to prevail.
The public debate as I have heard it reflects ignorance about the conduct of science and prejudice about the results. Ideologues on both sides peddle opinion as fact and attitude as certain truth. That may always be true when important issues come into the political marketplace. Yet the need for certainty that many seek may leave us incapable of taking prompt actions that we may need. Andrew Revkin made that argument in The New York Times. As must seem clear, I agree with him.
Let us hope that we buy into actions that reflect truth about the climate, and not merely rank on the applause meter.
