Cathy Young, in an opinion piece for RealClearPolitics.com, makes a very good point that socially-motivated rhetorical extremism by both the environmental and anti-global warming movements has overshadowed any reasoned input actual climate scientists might have on the subject. She wonders why scientists who back measures to mitigate global climate change haven't distanced themselves from more fanatical, politically-motivated members of the "environmentalist" camp. Should science be "above such motives"? I would argue that even if they "should", they cannot.
The popular conception of science as an impassionate, reasoned search for universal truth is simply false. Nobody succeeds in science without being able to "sell" their research as valid, important, and worth paying attention to. Most scientists, like me, consider ourselves lucky to be doing science - we get to think for a living, explore places unknown to human knowledge, and be the first to see things never before seen. It is difficult, stressful work, however. It takes resolve, intense study, and the ability to watch your labors be credited to and exploited by those above you in a very real scientific hierarchy.
Science is a hierarchical feudal system, much like any business, government agency, or social organization. To rise in the hierarchy, besides a reasonable measure of brains and a good pedigree (top researchers who will endorse your work), you also must possess the ability to network, to succeed at all costs, and understand collaboration and quid pro quo. Research has to be funded; careers are at stake; and there is a strong, though not absolute, current of conformity enforced by the leaders in a scientific field. Thus, few scientists can afford to be "above politics". Indeed, the hierarchy selects for well-spoken, intelligent scientists that can win in the political arena. Public, media, and government conception of scientific issues is often key to getting funds allocated to a particular field of research or technology development. The public, the media, major technology corporations, venture capitalists, and government (which funds the vast majority of science), rely on these leaders to interpret the science for them, and tell them what is important, and why it should be funded.
The reality is that the practice of science is mostly inference, conjecture, argument, and consensus. Any reasoned scientific analysis is in a sense a piece of propaganda, albeit based on some reasonable consensus among scientists about how the universe works. Outlandish results and technologies are given brief airtime, but they have to be backed up by data that other scientists can follow. Critically, other scientists have to come to the same conclusions or else one's place in the heirarchy is forfeit. Funding will not be renewed, tenures will be lost, careers will end. Pseudo-science is rigorously vetted. Remember what happened to the inventors of "cold fusion" and the scientists who claimed to clone human embryos from stem cells for the first time?
She also wonders how the the non-scientist public can judge whether the allegations around "climategate" are true. I would argue again that out of context, the details of any scientist's grant-writing, email conversations, internal progress reports, and draft publications are fragmentary non-evidence if not interpreted by the scientist himself or herself. This is the stuff neither the media, public, nor even peer reviewers, funding agencies, or scientific competitors in the field, are ever supposed to see. Perhaps half the meaning of the contents of the "climategate" files are contained inside the climate researchers' brains. However, for someone who has a fanciful vision of how science is actually done, the existence of so much "conjecture" and human "motive" in internal politics of peer review, consensus, and funding must be quite a shock. I apologize for science - you weren't supposed to see the man behind the curtain.
Cathy Young is correct, unfortunately, that public understanding of science seems dismal. But this need not be. If people can understand political election campaigns, the economics of the bailout, or how the wild card system in the NFL actually works, the "scientific method" should not be mysterious. It is simple: 1. Observe, 2. Hypothesize, 3. Test, 4. Discuss implications.
1. It takes an observation: sea ice is melting.
2. Posits a reason for it: the appearance of higher average air and sea temperatures and altered current patterns in the Artic and Antarctic.
3. Examines whether the hypothesis is consistent, supported, testable, or backed up, by further observational or experimental data: laboratory experiments show greenhouse gases trap heat; air temperature is dependent on atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations; sea currents and temperatures have changed over decades; ice thickness and distribution have consistently decreased over decades in a pattern; average permafrost thickness has declined in the Arctic; human activity has released greenhouse gases into the atmosphere; etc.
4. And uses the results to support or refute current theory: melting sea ice signals global climate change as follows: melting Arctic and Antarctic sea ice is caused by recent increased global temperatures and variations in sea currents, which are likely caused by human release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere changing atmospheric trapping of heat.
Am I a believer in global climate change? Based on the research so far, yes. Is that my professional scientific opinion? Yes. Have I analyzed all of the data myself? No, but I trust that my fellow scientists are doing science just like we're doing it at my institution, and that internally, politics and all, it works the same way. Could it all be wrong? Of course. But one last thing: inference based off incomplete data, the gut feeling, means a lot for the progress of scientific research. It guides you in what to study and how to study it. My gut feeling has about a 95% success rate. And it tells me this: polar bears are eating each other. That's just not normal for a large boreal predator. In three decades, all of the debate about whether global climate change was happening by 2010 or not will be laughable. It's inevitable - build a beachfront timeshare in Newfoundland now, because it's going to be a balmy vacation destination by 2042.
Original Article by Cathy Young at RealClearPolitics.com
http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20091210/cm_rcp/when_science_becomes_a_casualty_of_politics
The popular conception of science as an impassionate, reasoned search for universal truth is simply false. Nobody succeeds in science without being able to "sell" their research as valid, important, and worth paying attention to. Most scientists, like me, consider ourselves lucky to be doing science - we get to think for a living, explore places unknown to human knowledge, and be the first to see things never before seen. It is difficult, stressful work, however. It takes resolve, intense study, and the ability to watch your labors be credited to and exploited by those above you in a very real scientific hierarchy.
Science is a hierarchical feudal system, much like any business, government agency, or social organization. To rise in the hierarchy, besides a reasonable measure of brains and a good pedigree (top researchers who will endorse your work), you also must possess the ability to network, to succeed at all costs, and understand collaboration and quid pro quo. Research has to be funded; careers are at stake; and there is a strong, though not absolute, current of conformity enforced by the leaders in a scientific field. Thus, few scientists can afford to be "above politics". Indeed, the hierarchy selects for well-spoken, intelligent scientists that can win in the political arena. Public, media, and government conception of scientific issues is often key to getting funds allocated to a particular field of research or technology development. The public, the media, major technology corporations, venture capitalists, and government (which funds the vast majority of science), rely on these leaders to interpret the science for them, and tell them what is important, and why it should be funded.
The reality is that the practice of science is mostly inference, conjecture, argument, and consensus. Any reasoned scientific analysis is in a sense a piece of propaganda, albeit based on some reasonable consensus among scientists about how the universe works. Outlandish results and technologies are given brief airtime, but they have to be backed up by data that other scientists can follow. Critically, other scientists have to come to the same conclusions or else one's place in the heirarchy is forfeit. Funding will not be renewed, tenures will be lost, careers will end. Pseudo-science is rigorously vetted. Remember what happened to the inventors of "cold fusion" and the scientists who claimed to clone human embryos from stem cells for the first time?
She also wonders how the the non-scientist public can judge whether the allegations around "climategate" are true. I would argue again that out of context, the details of any scientist's grant-writing, email conversations, internal progress reports, and draft publications are fragmentary non-evidence if not interpreted by the scientist himself or herself. This is the stuff neither the media, public, nor even peer reviewers, funding agencies, or scientific competitors in the field, are ever supposed to see. Perhaps half the meaning of the contents of the "climategate" files are contained inside the climate researchers' brains. However, for someone who has a fanciful vision of how science is actually done, the existence of so much "conjecture" and human "motive" in internal politics of peer review, consensus, and funding must be quite a shock. I apologize for science - you weren't supposed to see the man behind the curtain.
Cathy Young is correct, unfortunately, that public understanding of science seems dismal. But this need not be. If people can understand political election campaigns, the economics of the bailout, or how the wild card system in the NFL actually works, the "scientific method" should not be mysterious. It is simple: 1. Observe, 2. Hypothesize, 3. Test, 4. Discuss implications.
1. It takes an observation: sea ice is melting.
2. Posits a reason for it: the appearance of higher average air and sea temperatures and altered current patterns in the Artic and Antarctic.
3. Examines whether the hypothesis is consistent, supported, testable, or backed up, by further observational or experimental data: laboratory experiments show greenhouse gases trap heat; air temperature is dependent on atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations; sea currents and temperatures have changed over decades; ice thickness and distribution have consistently decreased over decades in a pattern; average permafrost thickness has declined in the Arctic; human activity has released greenhouse gases into the atmosphere; etc.
4. And uses the results to support or refute current theory: melting sea ice signals global climate change as follows: melting Arctic and Antarctic sea ice is caused by recent increased global temperatures and variations in sea currents, which are likely caused by human release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere changing atmospheric trapping of heat.
Am I a believer in global climate change? Based on the research so far, yes. Is that my professional scientific opinion? Yes. Have I analyzed all of the data myself? No, but I trust that my fellow scientists are doing science just like we're doing it at my institution, and that internally, politics and all, it works the same way. Could it all be wrong? Of course. But one last thing: inference based off incomplete data, the gut feeling, means a lot for the progress of scientific research. It guides you in what to study and how to study it. My gut feeling has about a 95% success rate. And it tells me this: polar bears are eating each other. That's just not normal for a large boreal predator. In three decades, all of the debate about whether global climate change was happening by 2010 or not will be laughable. It's inevitable - build a beachfront timeshare in Newfoundland now, because it's going to be a balmy vacation destination by 2042.
Original Article by Cathy Young at RealClearPolitics.com
http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20091210/cm_rcp/when_science_becomes_a_casualty_of_politics
