I got a good chuckle out of this piece by George Monbiot in the Guardian about the recent global warming e-mail controversy.
My view is that the emails aren’t that damaging. Is it surprising that scientists would try to keep work that disagrees with their findings out of journals? When I told my father that I was sending my work saying car seats are not that effective to medical journals, he laughed and said they would never publish it because of the result, no matter how well done the analysis was. (As is so often the case, he was right, and I eventually published it in an economics journal.)
Within the field of economics, academics work behind the scenes constantly trying to undermine each other. I’ve seen economists do far worse things than pulling tricks in figures. When economists get mixed up in public policy, things get messier. So it is not at all surprising to me that climate scientists would behave the same way.
(Hat tip: Tony Pell)
and 
. You can also watch it on 
It’s not surprising to you. But it’s surprising to other people, perhaps the “general public.”
Even if there wasn’t a conscious decision to target the results, there would be a subconscious bias towards results that further the researchers careers; an incentive. Most people who read your blog probably understand that.
But most other people don’t seem to realize this. That’s why this is big news.
@Jimmy
There is no difference. The exact same kind of academic infighting, sometimes played very dirty, happens in Physics, Chemistry and Biology as well. All it says about climate science is that its scientist, like other scientists, are sometimes behaving rather unscientific when their own interests and careers are concerned.
@4–Pete: “Albert also had the same problem.”
Urban Legend. Einstein had a hard time getting started (most of us do), but the quality of his Physics was widely applauded early on.
Jimmy said, “If you submit something to a math journal showing that some other proof is wrong and can show exactly where, it will get published.”
Akerlof’s theoretical paper, the Market for Lemons, was rejected about 4 times before it was published. The reason for one of the rejections was that it was “wrong,” when Akerlof proved it mathematically. Just because something is 100% proven to be logically true doesn’t mean it’s going to get published.
Further, Jimmy said, “Hypotheses aren’t tested, they’re modeled.”
But that’s how you test hypotheses. You set up a model (also known as a hypothesis of the way the world works) and perform statistical tests to see how well the model fits the data. If the model doesn’t fit the data, then the model (hypothesis) is wrong.
That’s how real science works, and that also happens to be what climate scientists do; they make models and test them against historical data. The models that include human factors fit significantly better than models that do not, which is what the science is based on.
Most folks aren’t experts in statistics and error analysis. They can be duped by one number, outlier though it may be. Trying to control the message to prevent foks from jumping to the wrong conclusion is all about politics. Politics can make everyone look bad.
That the world as we know it is ending seems to have gotten lost in the ‘scandal’
I cracks me up that people are actually surprised and outraged that science is political.
One good start for any of these discussions is to stop allowing anonymous comments. When a commenter puts their name on the line they are far more likely to be actual comments rather than paid disinformers. Those who hacked this email thread are the ones who should be investigated. I think it would be very interesting.
There are agendas within agendas when it comes to climate change as I’m sure the Freakonomics guys have discovered. Bad science is bad science. Meanwhile the ice is melting…
Are you kidding?
By definition, scientists don’t have pre-conceived notions (ok, exclude the right-wingers). Science is the process of experimentation and discovery.
It’s the process of offering theories to explain the facts, and altering a theory, if and when necessary.
Yes, it’s surprising that scientists would hide the facts.
Disgraceful is a better word