Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
whole new meaning to the old saying popularised by Mark Twain about 'lies, damn lies
and statistics.'
Suffice it to say that climate science is an example of what Canadian educator Sue
McGregor calls 'post-normal science' in which 'the facts are uncertain, values are in
dispute, stakes are high and decisions are urgent.' In such circumstances it is virtually
impossible to avoid sub-conscious cherry-picking of data to suit the popular theory of
the time. Even Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein were not immune from the problem. In
their case they were of sufficient genius (and were sufficiently lucky!) for their theories
ultimately to trump the inaccuracy of the observations they had selected. Other scientists
arerarelysoprescientorsolucky.Inthemoderneraofconcernaboutclimate, theproblem
is compounded by the existence of vastly complex computer forecasting models that can
be tuned, again more-or-less subconsciously, to yield a desired result. From theory to
observation and back again—if we are not very careful, the cherry-picking can go round
and round in an endless misleading loop.
But the real worry with climate research is that it is on the very edge of what is called
postmodern (as opposed to post-normal) science. Postmodern science is a counterpart of
the relativist world of postmodern art and design. It is a much more dangerous beast where
results are valid only in the context of society's beliefs, and where the very existence of
scientific truth can be denied. Postmodern science envisages a sort of political nirvana in
which scientific theory and results can be consciously and legitimately manipulated to suit
either the dictates of political correctness or the policies of the government of the day.
There is little doubt that some players in the climate game—not a lot, but enough to
haveseverelydamagedthereputationofclimatescientistsingeneral—havesteppedacross
the boundary into postmodern science. The
Climategate
scandal of 2009 for instance,
wherein thousands of emails were leaked (or perhaps hacked) from the Climate Research
Unit of the University of East Anglia, showed that certain senior members of the research
community were, and presumably still are, quite capable of deliberately selecting data
in order to overstate the case for dangerous climate change. The emails showed as well
that these senior members were quite happy to discuss ways and means of controlling the
research journals so as to deny publication of any material that goes against the orthodox
dogma. The ways and means included the sacking of recalcitrant editors.
Whatever the reason, it is indeed vastly more difficult to publish results in climate
research journals if they run against the tide of politically correct opinion, which is
why most of the sceptic literature on the subject has been forced onto the web, and
particularly onto web-logs devoted to the sceptic view of things. This, in turn, is why
the more fanatical believers in disastrous anthropogenic global warming insist that only
peer-reviewed literature should be accepted as an indication of the real state of affairs.
They argue that the sceptic blogs should never be taken seriously by 'real' scientists, and
certainly should never be quoted.
