'Climategate''s lesson for science

The "climategate" brouhaha that was ignited late last month underscores the messiness of scientific research that the lay world often doesn't understand. The controversy erupted when hacked emails of top climate scientists found their way onto the Internet and appeared to show the researchers playing less than fair with some data. Some of the emails suggested that scientists were trying to make global warming look bleaker than it is. Those who doubt the severity of global warming jumped on the revelations to trumpet their side.

What the large-scale stink reveals, in the view of Ian I. Mitroff and Abraham Silvers, is that scientists aren't always adept at helping the public understand the scientific process. While scientists pursue the great questions of the day, they fail to solve the related problem of informing the world of how their investigations work. In their book, "Dirty Rotten Strategies: How We Trick Ourselves and Others into Solving the Wrong Problems Precisely," Mitroff and Silvers explore how the fields of media, healthcare, national security, academia, and organized religion stumble sometimes by missing revelant questions. Mitroff is an emeritus professor at the University of Southern California and president of Comprehensive Crisis Management, a crisis management consulting firm. Silvers has been an associate professor of mathematics at California State University, Los Angeles, and a special fellow at Stanford Medical School.


From the standpoint of the science, the recent "climategate" flap is a nonissue. Unfortunately, from other perspectives, it is not.

By focusing on only the technical content, science has failed to solve the right problem. While the technical content is obviously important -- it must always be gotten right -- the public's perception of the social aspects of science is just as important, if not even more so. This is the primary lesson that science needs to learn.

The institution of science rightly deserves praise in that it ultimately got the data right that led to a strong consensus with regard to global warming. For all intents and purposes, the debate has been over for some time. Only the scientifically illiterate continue to doubt global warming. What remains is the highly daunting task of what to do about it. And this is precisely where the failure of science to educate the public can come back to haunt it.

But, in a significant sense, the institution of science has failed miserably once again to educate the public as to the process of science. This is the real tragedy of the flap over irrelevant emails.

The actual practice of science is always messy; it doesn't conform to the sanitized, simple-minded textbook, super-idealized images that scientists themselves have concocted to promote the discipline as the most unbiased, objective way of knowing, and therefore deserving of high prestige and major funding.

The history of science shows again and again that individual scientists are highly partisan advocates of pet hypotheses. They are not super-rational creatures devoid of all biases. Indeed, science needs individuals who have strong views and will defend them to the death lest their often brilliant and controversial insights die prematurely. Nonetheless, this does not mean that science as a whole is biased and not objective.

The interesting thing that most lay people and even scientists don't understand is how unbiased knowledge as a whole emerges from individual scientists who are biased. It is still one of the greatest mysteries of science.

It's not just that opposing biases cancel out -- which they do -- but that opposing passions prod scientists to collect more data and invent new theories to see who's right. Without such passions, science would grind to a halt. After all, science is done by all-too-human beings.

Again, what's truly sad is that the scientific community has not seen fit to educate the public as to how science actually gets done. If this were done, it could in fact be one of the most important outcomes of global warming.

Science finally needs to grow up. It cannot sit back and allow crises to hit it unprepared. It needs to be proactive, not reactive especially if it to help in overcoming one of the worst potential calamities of all times.

By Steven E. Levingston |  December 17, 2009; 5:30 AM ET Politics , Steven Levingston
Previous: Recovery from financial disaster: the Icelandic way | Next: America's unfulfilled promise to women


Please email us to report offensive comments.

The author of this article seems to be under the impression that the public is ignorant of scientific methodology. He may be correct however, we are not ignorant of what accuracy and truth are. He doesn't address the fact that peer review is critical in any type of scientific endeavor but was sorely lacking in climate change. Not just in the "Climategate" instance but throughout the world dissenting opions were and are being supressed by intimidation, threats, and ridicule. We in the general public are aware of these things and are rightly skeptical as everyone, including "scientists", should be of any and all studies involving the climate. By virtue of being dishonest, scientists have brought their profession shame and dishonor. We know that real science thrives on open and honest discussion because in the real world there are no absolutes. We are all learning and discovering not by pontificating or fascism of thought but by true scientific methodology which includes skepticism which can lead to truth.

Posted by: seniormale | December 18, 2009 11:01 AM

Agree with seniormale.

You don’t have to be scientifically trained to understand simple fraud.

I have read the IPCC technical reports (avoid the political summary) and studied the evidence presented. I thought the case made was weak and the arguments self serving. I thought then, and I think now, that it will take many decades of study if not a century or two, to really understand the totality of ALL factors affecting global climate.

Until the release of the emails and the Harry Read Me file, I didn’t realize how deep and corrupt the IPCC science was. I have studied scientific history and, with two exceptions, I have not found anything approaching the scope of Climategate.

The first was Lysenkoism and the corruption of genetics; the second the bogus and evil science of Aryanism superiority.

Read the emails and don’t depend on surrogates. Go to wattsupwiththat.com or climateaudit.com and read what those opposed to “settled science” are presenting.

What I find more troubling than the actual fraud, is the attempt by the Washington Post and others to try to minimize what has been revealed.

Climate Science has been set back decades by those using the science to advance a political and emotional agenda … dare I say “religious agenda”? . Anger should be directed against the “wreckers” and not those who want honest research to answer critical climate questions.

As to “consensus science” or “settled science”?

“Indeed, when Albert Einstein was informed of the publication of a book entitled 100 Scientists Against Einstein, he is said to have remarked,

‘If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!’”

One email dump is enough.

Posted by: jgfox39 | December 24, 2009 1:14 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.


© 2010 The Washington Post Company