Science requires naysayers to work
<center><b>Bill Stevenson</b></center>
I enjoyed classes on science. They were exciting. Understanding how things work would keep my attention in class far beyond my parents’ belief.
I believed in the archetype scientist in the white lab coat. The ones saving the world with the right data and proper lab equipment. He would save everyone and the leading man would get the credit. It’s not fair, but that’s how it works.
Today our white lab coat wearing hero is losing credibility, suffering another wound with the ongoing rancor of “global warming.”
A hacker released 1,073 e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, many going between Penn State University climate scientist Michael Mann and Anglia’s climate center director Phil Jones. They are involved with the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The e-mails do not prove or disprove the theory of rapid man-made climate change, but they throw fuel on the fires of the people taking one side or the other.
The series of e-mail proves scientists can be petty, angry, jealous and frustrated. This particular series shows a troubling trend in a science affecting the world.
Basically, a scientist generates a theory and sets about determining if it is true or not. This can be the factual use of data or experiments. Without strict adherence to using factual information, they will not successfully prove their theory. Different results, than what they predict, can lead to better ideas or at least a better understanding.
To insure science remains married to facts and the truth, they often conduct peer reviews. A scientist writes his theory and lists the information he believes proves his work. Some scientists disagree and offer evidence to disprove the idea. This conflict is crucial to determining the truth. The arguments should provide inspiration for scientists to seek a better methods of proof. When they all agree, it tends to be true.
But what the e-mails are showing is a group of well respected climate scientists have allowed their pride and emotions to stop progress on their work. They don’t want to hear how another scientists disagree and why. The e-mails show threats of boycotting the very process that would push their work beyond argument. Does this mean they refuse to listen if another scientist finds errors in their work? How does this help hone scientific theories into proven scientific laws?
The e-mails show they deviated from using factual data on temperatures gathered from tree rings to substituting temperatures gathered in a different method to verify their theories. This is lying. It discredits and casts doubt on all of the work these scientists have done. If they lied about this deviation, what other questionable data did they use?
What were they afraid of? The traditions of science show constructive criticism works to help establish the truth. Was it the huge amount of peer pressure and money being used on behalf of their theories? With popular theories, did they receive better salaries, budgets and respect? Was it pride?
Debates rage about the importance of the e-mails on the theories of rapid man-made climate change. Yes, rapid man-made is appropriate. Just 12,000 years ago the Columbia Basin was buried under miles thick sheets of ice, and now it is a completely different climate.
The worst damage Mann and Jones contributed is to science’s credibility. Without the peer review process, we can never be sure if what they “prove” is true.
Imagine the white lab coated scientist in the movie. If he acted like they did, everyone would have died.
Bill Stevenson is the Columbia Basin Herald managing editor. He often bores us with his conversations on the latest scientific discovery or application of new technology.
Become a Subscriber!
You have read all of your free articles this month. Select a plan below to start your subscription today.
Already a subscriber? Login
