Offended by Offence

The proceedings in Copenhagen have wrapped up, and to no one’s surprise, the efforts to come up with an effective and binding international treaty to address global warming have been elusive.  After all, attempting to reduce carbon emissions has significant implications for economic development in all countries (not to mention capitalism as we know it), and putting a ceiling on emissions will put some countries at a competitive disadvantage in relation to others (Europe, for example, uses more nuclear power and renewable energy than the United States and China, and is poised to expand its market share on this basis).  The impotence of all parties involved results in delaying any actual action for 10, 20 or even 40 years.  Making promises in the far distant future means that economic development can continue unrestrained – even if this means that the survival of humanity is threatened.

While these political problems were predictable, another, more surpising, circumstance occurred just before the summit.  A number of emails were obtained by hacking into the server used by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia.   Thousands of emails, written over the last 13 years, were then disseminated and posted on a number of websites.

Controversy erupted because some of these emails could be interpreted as showing that scientists at East Anglia had engaged in a number of unethical, and perhaps illegal,  activities.  These activities included collusion to withhold data, interference in peer-review processes to prevent dissenting viewpoints from being published, attempts to delete information to prevent it from being accessed by freedom of information legislation, and manipulated data to artificially strengthen the case for global warming.  Climate scientists responded to these accusations, stating that they were a smear campaign and an attempt to use statements in the emails out of context so as to sabotage the meeting at Copenhagen.

Although it appears that some of the emails were interpreted incorrectly or used out of context (see, for example, “University of East Anglia emails: the most contentious quotes”, The Daily Telegraph, November 23, 2009, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/6636563/University-of-East-Anglia-emails-the-most-contentious-quotes.html and ”Climate change e-mails have been quoted totally out of context”, The Times, December 8, 2009,  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6948008.ece), there were some instances of unethical conduct (for example, attempts to exclude peer-reviewed papers from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports).  This raises questions about why these scientists would engage in these practices.  It is entirely understandable why scientists funded by the oil and gas industry would have an interest in distorting their research findings to downplay the existence of global warming; the realization that global warming is a serious problem, and the resulting political pressure to address it, could place restrictions on these companies, threatening their profitability.  In looking at the case of University of East Anglia scientists, however, it is not clear why they would engage in these unethical practices.

Two reasons have been given for why these scientists would attempt to manipulate their data to support the case for global warming.   The first is economic interest; is it possible that these scientists benefit financially from asserting the existence of man-made global warming (heightened concern, for example, could increase the research funding available to study the problem)?  The second is ideological.  Paul Gross and Norman Levitt in their book Higher Superstition, for example, have noted that many environmental ideologies have an unscientific streak and often embrace “appocalyptic scenarios”, which make them predisposed to exaggerate the extent of the environmental crisis.  There is also the charge that proponents of environmental ideologies are closet socialists, and are promoting restrictions on industry so as to strangle economic development to bring about the revolution.

Although there may be economic and ideological factors that are influencing the activities of these scientists, the problem seems to have its roots in arrogance more than anything.  There seems to be a great deal of evidence for global warming – rapid melting of glaciers and ice caps, overall increases in temperatures that appear to be accelerating, more severe droughts and forest fires, and a general heightened volatility in weather patterns (something that insurance companies are recognizing), and it would be best to take a precautionary stance because “no one wants to use the earth as a crash test dummy” (Gross and Levitt).  The scientific community appears to recognize the severity of the crisis, but the complexity of the studies documenting it cannot be communicated easily to the public.  As a result, these scientists do not want to “confuse” those who lack the scientific literacy to understand how to interpret conflicting data.  The actions of industry in having a predetermined agenda (to downplay the effects of global warming) also has added to the problem since any inconsistent studies are immediately regarded with suspicion.

It is an extremely dangerous course of action to assume that one knows the truth, and therefore it is a waste of time to try to go through the laborious process of providing evidence to support one’s claims.  The most obvious objection to this tendency is that the truth can only emerge through, as Alan Sokal points out, “incessant confrontation of theories with the real world” so that reasoned argument, evidence and logic can prevail over “wishful thinking, superstition and demagoguery”.  

Omitting contradictory information to better communicate what seems to be the truth is also problematic because it fails include the public in the conversation about the necessity to weigh evidence.  There are huge deficiencies in the understanding of scientific principles around the world, and this does not bode very well for the future of humanity.  In the United States, for example, many people do not accept the theory of evolution, even though there is a tremendous amount of evidence to support it.  This exclusion from scientific debates prevents the public from developing the necessary skills to think rationally, and thereby protect themselves from fraudulent claims and manipulation.  Members of the public need to understand that the truth is not what someone in a white coat (or a black robe) says; we move towards it by carefully evaluating the evidence and discarding what cannot be supported by rational argument.