Some top officials of a Nobel Prize-winning climate-science organization are acknowledging the panel made some mistakes amid a string of recent revelations questioning the accuracy of some of the information in its influential reports. [...]I’m definitely angry with the scientists at the IPCC. I’m counting on them to be the rational reliable people in this debate and it does nobody any good when they cut corners and don’t own up to mistakes.
[T]hough they say each revelation itself is small, they worry that the continuing string of them is damaging the IPCC's credibility—not just with experts who question the premise of human-induced climate change, but with the public at large.
But what really gets me is that every time scientists do admit to a mistake, no matter how minor it ultimately is, the anti-science crowd start screeching at the top of their lungs. This disproves the entire theory! It’s all a conspiracy! Environmentalism is nothing but a cult!
Of course this makes massive headlines, which is all the deniers really want to do – not address the evidence or improve our understanding, but simply shout the whole thing down. And in the meantime scientists have to run around trying to convince the public that they're not evil, instead of focusing on scientific issues that really do need scrutiny and debate.
For the last time, nutjobs – true science is not a religion. It does not attempt to define the great cosmic Truth of the Universe. Science is about gathering evidence and creating, as best we can, a series of models that explain how the world works. If you find a mistake, you fix it. If you want to scrap an entire model, you come up with a better one. Those are the rules. If you’d paid attention in high school Chemistry class, you’d know that.
Gawd.
The problem is, of course, that the scientists have been put - by some - on some higher moral plane than the rest of us. It would be as though their pursuit of "how the world works" makes them immune to the same temptation of corner-cutting and compromises we cubicle-dwellers experience. (We cubicle-dwellers are subject to peer-review, standards, etc., in our own way, too.)
ReplyDeleteWhat happens when the scientist's reviewer sees a nice contract extension if the study could jsut "make this point just a little stronger. Sells the program better. Can't we just re-word this a little?"
I would have been very surprised if something like this had not happened.
I majored in physics because I thought it was interesting, challenging, and I could make good grades. I enjoyed it. I work with scientists. They're all smarter than me, and they're good at what they do, but they are human like the rest of us.
This effects my opinion of climate change--not at all.
Maybe some people elevate scientists to a higher plane, but I think the general public hears "scientist" and thinks "scrawny geek in a lab coat who got beat up a lot in high school." And those are the people the critics are targeting. (The noisy dumb critics, I mean, like politicians or Fox News pundits.)
ReplyDeleteAs someone who promotes science-based careers to kids for a living, I can tell you that science is misrepresented by most of the media when it's not outright ignored, it's increasingly neglected in schools, and when it comes to things like climate change and evolution, it's demonised by politicians and some religious leaders.
I'd Google some stats for you about how most middle-school students decide that science is boring and not relevant to real problems in the world, but that would make me depressed.
Demanding scientific rigour and transparency is fine, I'm all for it. But the critics are pouncing on these mistakes and ignoring mountains of other evidence that scientists have been compiling for decades. Because they know the average person doesn't pay attention to science all that much and won't be able to tell the difference. Plus the average person gets mad if they have to pay a tax on gasoline.
Like I said - the IPCC needs to shape up. But if you want to say "global warming is a hoax," you have to look at ALL the evidence and come up with a better explanation, not just cause PR scandals. And as imperfect and egotistical as scientists can be, I like them way way WAY more than I like Glenn Beck et al.
Hey, a lot of kids thought the same thing when I was in school, even back in those Juraissic days. (Bob Homburg was the top physics graduate in my class, and he was a defensive lineman on the football team that went to the Sugar Bowl. I bet he didn't get beat up a lot.) I dont' expect the IPCC to shape up, because I don't think they are any better or worse than any other organization. They, like we, are just subject to human nature's failings.
ReplyDeleteHalf-kidding here, but sometimes I wonder if you're a nihilist or I'm naive or both. Just because the IPCC is subject to human nature and will never be perfect doesn't mean they can't improve, or can't be a benefit to society. (Same goes for the federal government, by the way.)
ReplyDeleteIs the IPCC better or worse than any other organisation, human-nature-wise? No. Are they better than other organisations e.g. oil companies and religious groups in terms of addressing climate change? Absolutely.
I'm a cynic, not a nihilist. Especially when any large organization--be it corporate, academic, or governmental-- is proclaimed important. It's the Dilbert principle, and before that, the Peter Principle.
ReplyDeleteThe Intergoverntmental Panel on Climate Change had BETTER be good at addressing climate change. And as a result of getting caught (actually, just a few individuals got caught in a mistake, and that brought discredit on the whole organization--others tried to spin it) they will be more diligent, and will do their job better. But they will still be subject to the Dilbert Principle.
The difficulty comes when an organization such as the IPCC (or one speaking on its behalf) takes it upon itself to tell the energy companies how to produce energy, the governments how to govern, and the churches what their members should believe.
Corporations should listen to IPCC (and other research-oriented groups) because science is to their benefit, and they have civic responsibilities and duties as corporations. But the IPCC doesn't know how to produce energy for 6 billion people, or even 250 million, any more than Enron knew the causes of long-term trends in climate. (Picked Enron, cause their Peter/Dilbert Principle guys destroyed them.)
I also think people of faith should learn science, because it allows them to find out more of what God has done, and even much of how He did it.
Again, the difficulty comes when Churches try to tell research organizations how to conduct scientific research and governments how to govern. (While faith can define a senator's moral principles, that's not the same as deliniating every negotiation and decision that senator must balance for all citizens he or she represents.)
None of these groups are immune from their Peter and Dilbert influences. They'll do better when they stick to their main jobs. They'll screw up from time to time, and often they'll get caught and/or go bankrupt, and no one should be surprised.