Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
this doesn't guarantee them absolute freedom of thought and action. For
instance, during the presidency of George W. Bush, stem cell research in
the United States was stymied by federal government because of its highly
charged ethical implications. This is one of many examples where science
impinges visibly on society and invites external regulation of its practition-
ers' activities. There have been more than a few times when science must be
held to account, especially when funded by the public purse. In the case of
climate science, however, no such outside intervention in the black box of
scientific practice has applied, even in the period after the two scandals of
2009-10. This is because the research surveyed by the IPCC is not, in itself,
considered ethically problematic by the majority of national governments
or citizens. On the contrary, this research is largely considered to be of vital
importance. In the 'post-gate' period, the discussion has therefore focussed
on improving the self-governance of climate science. It's the working prac-
tices of scientists that have been at issue, rather than the wider implications
of their research. Before I recount some of this discussion, complete the
study task below.
Study Task:
Why, as citizens, must we rely on the claims made by the
epistemic community of climate scientists if we're to anticipate future envi-
ronmental change? In your view, are there any feasible alternatives to this
reliance? If so, would these alternatives be designed to regulate climate scien-
tists or to produce new knowledge independently that would be compared
with the representations produced by climate scientists?
'Climate-gate', as we've seen, pointed to a potential abuse of scientific
peer review, data manipulation and an unwillingness to share empirical
evidence and methodological information with non-members of the cre-
dentialised climate science community. 'Glacier-gate' suggested a lack of
rigour or even potential dishonesty in the communication of climate science
insights to politicians and publics. Virtually none of the official inquiries
in
Box 8.1
denied that errors of scientific judgement were made, even as
they cleared the scientists implicated of malpractice. Why did such failures
in professional self-governance occur? We can discount the charge levelled
by some climate change sceptics that the 'climate change consensus' repre-
sented in the recent IPCC reports is a 'scientific conspiracy' or, as American
Senator James Inhofe once (in)famously opined, a 'hoax' perpetrated against
the public. Though scientists operate in extended professional networks, it's
simply infeasible that thousands of climate specialists worldwide would - or
could - form the largest cabal in history (see
Plate 8.1
). So, can we instead
conclude that a few senior climate scientists rebuffed sceptics in order to,
perhaps, protect their own influential research and hard-won reputations
from challenge? This conclusion isn't unreasonable, though no evidence
exists to support it. We could just as well point to the possible effects
