We do not believe the East Anglia e-mails expose a conspiracy that invalidates the larger body of evidence demonstrating anthropogenic warming; nevertheless, the damage to public confidence in climate science ... may be enormous. The terrible danger -- one that has been brewing for years -- is that the invaluable role science should play in informing policy and politics will be irrevocably undermined, as citizens come to see science as nothing more than a tool for partisans of all stripes.Emphasis mine.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Two scientists agree ...
... with each other and with me: Climate change e-mail scandal underscores myth of pure science. (Hat tip, Dave Lull.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I am not sure that that statement is precisely correct as a general statement, that citizens will "come to see science as nothing more than a tool for partisans of all stripes."
ReplyDeleteMore likely, citizens will come to see science as being a tool for partisans of all stripes, which the e-mail situation demonstrates. Politics enters the studies of science to adjust, fudge, or influence the data, the results, and the conclusions that come from those results, not to mention what is studied and what is not and for what and whose purposes.
Also, that science can be made a tool for partisans of all stripes, is common sense. Anything-- education, the stock market, the crime rate--anything, including science, can be made a tool for partisans of all stripes, and will be. Good scientists should not be fearing that science, of all things, will be seen as "nothing more than" a partisan tool, any more than Catholicism is seen as nothing more than a partisan tool.
Here's a quote from the article that is more on target: Science, in other words, is replete with the same human failings that mark all other social activities. Yes, "the same human failings" not more human failings than other social activities. There is nothing exclusive about science that should make it "nothing more than" a partisan tool, when this isn't the case for other social activities, health care, for instance. health care is health care. Science is science. Education is education. And so forth. These activities that are apolitical unto themselves, can become political footballs.
The other aspect of pegging the common citizenry with such an inability to discern how human nature and politics has affected, and will continue to affect scientific endeavors--is that scientists get to look down on those who are rightfully looking in on their activities, in order to make assessments of what is going on. Politically speaking, the citizenry want to take a look for themselves, and should not be so insulted as they walk through the door. We should not be called denialists nor should we be cast as feeble-minded in some way such that we would not be able to discern right from wrong, the good climate science that is out there from the bad science that is floating around. We are talking about public policy here. Are the climatologists going to deny that they have an ethics issue, an issue that is more and more coming to the fore, that can be seen through this hubris problem on display?
I think you're right, Rus. But I think the important thing is how dangerous, and avoidable, lack of trust can be.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I'm not so sure about those emails demonstrating that scientists are just human like the rest of us, with the same foibles and failings. In my 28 years working for a newspaper I never encountered the sort of thing on display in the CRU emails. And anyone who has read The Double Helix knows that scientists personal shortcomings can be anything but ordinary.
What has especially bothered me is the tone of some who have dismissed the CRU emails as nothing but a tempest in a teapot, as if we peons should just take the tenured profs at their word and otherwise keep silent and do as we're told. Screw that.