The Climate of Science, the Science of Climate

Don't you hate titles like that? I apologize. It's late and I'm cranky.

Two related articles came across the wire the last couple days, this one from RealClearPolitics, and this one from the Weekly Standard. Both of them deal with the "science" of climate change, and how human frailties seem to be creating less-than-objective outcomes. The first article tells the story of Henrik Svensmark, and his theory that perhaps climate change is NOT the result of your Hummer, but instead the result of that gigantic ball of nuclear energy over your head. I know, I know, it sounds absurd when phrased like that, but really, that massive gaseous orb of charged ions (it's the size of the sun, and almost as large!) might just have something to do with it. As author Robert Tracinski notes, however, the important thing isn't the science, it's the way the science is revealed to the media. As he puts it, "If you have a study that you think backs up the global warming dogma, preface it with a press release drawing wildly speculative conclusions from the data. If you have a study that contradicts the global warming dogma, preface it with a press release declaring that no conclusions can be drawn."

The next article regales us with the saga of DR.* Peter Gleick, and his intrepid work to facilitate scientific progress by openly and dispassionately analyzing the data of climate change models to determine the impact of human industrial society on the world's climate falsify an internal "strategy memo" from the Heartland Institute in the hopes of discrediting climate skeptics by classic "attacking the messenger" tactics. Unfortunately (for DR.* Gleick) his memo was sorta on par with Dan Rather's documents about Bush's time in the National Guard, and was quickly picked apart by bloggers like condors on an elderly buffalo in the Mojave.

This leads us, of course, to an important characteristic about science. It is people -- venal, emotional, selfish, and impatient -- who do science. For all the talk about how science can give us answers, and can teach us much, it is critical never to forget that at the end of the day, while there is much in science for us to use, we are also unendingly capable of misusing science to the point that it ceases to be what it claims. This is scientism, and this uniquely modern affliction, wherein science becomes a perversion of itself, must constantly be exposed. The skeptic should hold an honored place in scientific debate; when politicians (!) attempt to sideline the skeptic, there truly is a War on Science. Would only the scientists themselves recognize this.


*B.S. Yale University, M.S., Ph.D. Univ. Cal-Berkeley, etc.etc.