'climategate' -- Caused By Politicians Or Scientists?

A recent piece in The Washington Times titled "Climate scientists to fight back at skeptics" talks about the ways in which key climate scientists are feeling compelled to fight back and respond to their critics, given the issue that has been referenced as "Climategate." Emails linking 2 principal climatologists had been leaked recently, and made climate scientists and their published data seem to be questionable. The emails linking the two climatologists seemed to indicate that they had ignored key data points to "massage data" in favor of certain foregone conclusions.

In the piece, Stephen H. Schneider, a Stanford professor, states that he feels the "social contract" between politicians and scientists has been shattered and that there is a need for it to be fixed. He notes,

"What I am trying to do is head off something that will be truly ugly... I don't want to see a repeat of McCarthyesque behavior and I'm already personally very dismayed by the horrible state of this topic, in which the political debate has almost no resemblance to the scientific debate."

Numerous climate scientists associated with the National Academy of Sciences, together with Schneider, participated in an email exchange in which they talked about the creation of a nonprofit group with a goal of raising money for a New York Times ad which would respond convincingly to the climate scientists' critics.

We are led to inquire why the "social contract" has been broken between politicians and scientists, because of this latest twist in the saga of "Climategate." Is it because the scientific information presented to us by the climate scientists is totally unsound? Or is this the end result of the lack of critical thinking on the part of policymakers who, rather than evaluating the outcomes presented by the "scientific experts," relied on those findings to tell them what to think?

Science, at its most rudimentary level, is all about disagreement, opposing viewpoints, and mixed interpretations. One of the fundamental necessities of any scientific conjecture is that its conclusions be falsified and tested, nevertheless what constitutes a "proven fact" is controversial. As a result, scientists quarrel; that's simply what scientists do. From diverse techniques of investigating collected facts to how to perform experimentation; scientists quarrel about everything. Time and again, the heated clashes between scientists come to a head, even being witnessed by graduate students at conferences where scientists occasionally even attack one another's reputations! So it is no shock that climate scientists fervently disagree on the records and what the statistics signify. However, when 1 point of view ceases to be questioned, in a "this is the total truth" point of view, science stops being scientific.

In this instance, the information was handled sloppily, resulting in "Climategate," but the situation is also probably the result of prejudice. When the theory that human CO2 emissions created global warming became the only theory for why polar ice caps had been melting, scientific objectivity was shelved. The whole cause for climate change was credited to this one very narrow observation of the records, while additional facts such as the influences of solar activity or particulate matter by aerosols were downplayed. It doesn't take a climate scientist, or even a scientist, to understand that to offer one arrangement of data as the single source of an event while downplaying other data spells trouble. Anyone with a simple awareness of science and adequate methods in analytical thinking can understand this.

Politicians, journalists, and the general public have to learn to take accountability for their individual understanding concerning science and the scientific process. The keys to forming a balanced outlook concerning climate science data are an understanding of how science operates and the fundamentals of science. Any person can accomplish the aptitude to evaluate scientific claims. If first graders are able to learn physics or chemistry, then journalists and politicians, as well as the average adult, can learn the basics and from there think judiciously about scientific conclusions.

Essentially, "Climategate" is a problem with education and politics, not science. The ongoing dispute between scientists about climate change is not irregular; it is exactly the way in which science is meant to function. There is a battle over climate records, as there ought to be. However, because politicians viewed climate change from a narrow lens without critically evaluating counterarguments, errors in reasoning were likely made. We do not necessarily need more experts; we need additional science education for everybody. Issues such as "Climategate" may never have occurred if politicians had learned to consider scientific claims for themselves and not only rely on other people to dictate scientific opinion to them. But this problem will only continue to become worse if funding for education continues to be reduced, as is presently happening in California to make up for the financial deficit the state has experienced. In order to re-establish the "social contract" between scientists and policymakers it might be a good idea to demand that both scientists and politicians take accountability for their own comprehension of those scientific matters that impact politics.

By: Rebecca Keller

Article Directory: http://www.articledashboard.com

Gravitas Publications was begun in 2002 because one home-school mom -- who actually was a scientist with a Ph.D. -- could not find age-appropriate, engaging textbooks that built a real basis for understanding science. For more information about Dr. Rebecca Keller and Real Science-4-Kids, please visit www.GravitasPublications.com. To read the The Washington Times article referenced above: www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/05/scientists-plot-to-hit-back-at-critics/