Climategate Was No Fluke

The Brown Daily Herald, 7 September 2010
 Dominic Mhiripiri

 The mainstream alarmist posturing on climate change by the likes of Al
Gore, regardless of whether it meets the demands of scientific accuracy
or not, is resetting political priorities and imposing billions of
dollars in costs for governments the world over.

Sustained inquiry, debate and scrutiny around the dealings of those
involved - from scientific practitioners to powerful policymakers - are
not only inevitable, but are also absolute imperatives. The taxpayer,
after all, funds most of the climate research and his life is vastly
affected by the domestic and international policies that it shapes. In
particular, emerging economies across the world grapple with the burden
of international pressures to "green up" versus their own aspirations to
fully industrialize.

In that regard, the sensational November 2009 revelation of deplorable
practices by leading climate change scientists cannot have been some
blind chase driven by ideology, but a significant and irreversible turn
in one of the greatest geopolitical debates of all time. Notwithstanding
the supposed exonerations of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) scientists
in question, their behavior remains unscrupulous. Moreover, for those
manning the frontiers of an issue with such enormous global
implications, "hiding the temperature decline" and destroying emails
with critical evidence strikes me as just outright unacceptable.

Through his column, ("Scientific Misconduct," September 1), David
Sheffield '11 would have us believe that the furor that arose from clear
evidence of manipulating empirical data was misplaced - because no
"scientific malpractice" was found by reviews. In other words, he
renders the legitimacy of any criticism to the sole discretion of those
tasked to "inquire" by the status quo, or those with zero incentives for
objectiveness in the issue. The implications of this approach cannot be
any trickier: all we need to settle this controversy is peer review by
institutions whose credentials for objectiveness in this matter are
questionable.

It should be noted that the implicated universities themselves - Penn
State and the University of East Anglia - as the respective employers of
the scientists in question, funded two of the supposedly independent
inquiries into the CRU. Finding the scientists guilty on any count would
also discredit these institutions and their status as the backbone of
what Gore would like us to think as the "overwhelming scientific
consensus" on climate change.

Sheffield's focus on the underlying issue is quite generic in that he
merely states the outcomes of the inquiries but not the accusations in
question. But his judgment on "deniers" is a little more detailed and
sharp. He tags the critics as "ideologically driven" and
"anti-scientific" crowds who are out to achieve self-serving ends. But
nothing, however, can be truer about the mainstream scientific consensus
on climate change whose figured scientists were tainted in the scandal.
No objective scientist but in fact one driven by ideology, can go to the
same lengths that the CRU experts went in actively trying to manipulate
highly consequential empirical data.

Apologists of the status quo scientists will point to the fact that the
evidence (or the lack thereof) was acquired illegally by a hacker, the
fact remains that the conventional climate change science is rooted in
the highly secretive work of men who we now know have the capacity and
sometimes, motive to tailor some of their findings to suit certain goals
- or ideologies, if you wish.

That climate change has become a multibillion dollar industry is not a
mystery, nor is the fact that millions of "green" dollars are lining the
personal pockets of those with enough clout on environmental policy.
From federal grants to windfalls from energy companies, many incentives
have clouded this industry and left total objectiveness wallowing away
from the top of priority lists.

Therefore, with the far-reaching implications of global environmental
policies, it is mandatory to keep relentless scrutiny as an
indispensable part of that matrix of interconnectedness.

To make those critical of the questionable practices of authoritative
scientists appear repulsive by tagging them as "anti-scientific" borders
on some sort of censorship. It is no wonder bigger climate change
fundamentalists are quick to address anyone skeptical of their
sensation-seeking rhetoric as a heretic, or in the words of Bill Nye,
"almost unpatriotic".

By analyzing both in the same side of his article, Sheffield paints
climate change "deniers" with the same brush as those guilty of
scientific misconduct, like disgraced academics of Marc Hauser's sort.
The only problem is that while Hauser's case presents a black-and-white
scenario whose verdict was easily delivered, the whitewash of the CRU by
supposedly independent inquiries is not so simplistic. It is a mere
microcosm of the fundamental global debate around global warming that is
both complex, and far from over.

The jury is definitely still out on the so-called Climategate, and I
don't think it is time for us here at Brown to conclusively hit that
gavel yet - especially at the lead of inquiries that may have well
chosen convenience over objectiveness. The enormity of the stakes
worldwide does not allow us that luxury.