I’ve waited a bit on this one to see how it would shake out. The hacked/leaked emails and data seemed to me like prime fodder for motivated cognition. My expectations were pretty much met. Many alarmists have inappropriately minimized the importance of the evidence of a shameful conspiracy to enforce what is clearly an ideological party line among climate researchers. Many skeptics have gone too far in using the revelations as grounds for casting doubt on the entire scientific case for AGW. But, clearly, the thrust of the scandal vindicates the skeptics’ claims that the science of climate change is conducted in an ideologically charged atmosphere, that there really are coordinated attempts to suppress or marginalize studies and scholars out of step with the favored narrative, and that there really are coordinated attempts to make evidence in favor of the favored narrative look better than it really is.Word. See also Clive Crook.
The scientific implications of the Climategate files are probably small, but the political implication is certainly large–because of the politicized nature of climate science confirmed by the files. Verification of the existence of conspiring enforcers of orthodoxy weakens the strongest rhetorical weapon in the alarmist arsenal. The idea that the science behind predictions of potentially catastrophic warming is rock solid and that the putative scientific consensus reflects the rock solidity of the science licenses the inference that there is no scientifically respectable excuse for skepticism of or disagreement with the consensus. That is a big stick to thump people with. But the Climategate files strongly suggest that at least some of the science is not rock solid and that the scientific consensus is at least in part the product of silencing or marginalizing those who might upset it. The files have made “How can we be sure that you did not fudge your data” and “How do we know that dissenting voices have been given a fair hearing?” questions that we now must ask rather than questions skeptics can be effectively shouted down for asking. The files show that suspicion is warranted. That’s a big deal.
It is not surprising to see a “Move along! Nothing to see here!” response from alarmists, but there is certainly something to see. Though I’m sure some ideologues will merely amp up their armtwisting thug tactics to protect the fragile perception of consensus they had achieved (precioussssssss!), I predict that the overall response from the scientific community will be healthy and invigorating. Climate science will become more transparent and more rigorously by-the-book because climate scientists are becoming more fully aware that the impulse to jealously protect a public perception of consensus can undermine itself by producing questionable science and a justifiably skeptical public.
Monday, November 30
Climategate
Will Wilkinson:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(1987)
-
▼
November
(119)
- Climategate
- An evolutionary arms race
- Link blag
- How's that Iraq surge faring now?
- Where's Rob?
- Science groaners
- Life
- Quote of the day
- Pigovian economics
- Spreading the patriotic message everywhere
- Chart of the day
- Top five Republican distortions
- 1985 Dungeons & Dragons moral panic film
- Image search in China
- Quote of the day
- Photos of the day
- Obesity and health costs: here come the vice police
- A dirty child is a healthy child
- The "first 10 years" health spending
- The misery index
- Going Rogue in review
- The tradeoffs of health reform
- SNL does Obama in China
- The incoherent Senate debate
- Orwell vs. Huxley
- Quote of the day
- Public option politics
- Empty LA
- Conservative Democrats voting to proceed, but not ...
- The surge^H^H^H^H^Hstimulus is working!
- Gang of three to block public option?
- The end of HSAs?
- Great Wall
- The era of big government will be over
- Foreign greetings
- Protesting diplomacy
- Regional world GDPs
- Quote of the day
- Jon Stewart explains to conservative pundits why h...
- Palin's mammoth book toor
- Big Daddy Byrd
- Conan O'brien's Palin interview
- Link blag
- Blood and Treasure
- Jeffrey Flier on health reform
- Obama in China
- Sarah Palin, international face of the opposition
- That ten year-old who refused to pledge
- Former soldier faces jail for handing in discarded...
- Not quite as scary this way
- Why is the trial a problem?
- Biden's in charge
- Quote of the day
- The decade in seven minutes
- Quote of the day
- David and Goliath, 21st century edition
- How to eat a chicken wing
- Sen. Webb (D-VA) on the terror trials
- "Offensive Cyber War Turned The Insurgency In 2007"
- Morale plummets in Afghanistan, improves in Iraq
- Three cheers for limited government
- Catholics, gays, and the poor, ctd.
- What is this 'rule of law' and 'due process' you s...
- Link blag
- Quote of the day
- Local news on Rand Paul
- The other walls
- Republicans pull ahead for 2010?
- Photo of the day
- The dead zone: implicit marginal tax rates on the ...
- And now, a history of the Internet
- Link blag
- The shape of things to come
- Tear down that..wait, what?
- Afghanistan to get McChrystal light
- 100 million dead
- Blaming the president for unemployment
- Comparing Western Europe
- 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall
- Weapons bound for Hezbollah
- Sunday viewings
- "An open letter to Jonah Goldberg"
- Climate change diavlog
- Dept. of memories
- What is this picture?
- More on nukes
- "Under the Rightwing Rock"
- Obama on the debt
- Quote of the day
- USPS, Inc.
- No political lesson
- Jon's epic spoof of Beck
- Peace be upon the people of peace...
- Another meaningless shooting?
- Stephen Colbert vs. Stephen Colber on AGW
- GOP shoots and scores
- The purged moderate speaks
- This is why they fight
- Revisiting the achievements of the Veterans Health...
- The progressive case for an excise tax
-
▼
November
(119)
No comments:
Post a Comment