Climategate: The Scientist's Perspective
My, hasn't it been an interesting fortnight in the world of science. I missed out on much of it until li'l sis pointed me to an Economist article on the subject. I blame the fact I'm currently penning my own journal article for submission to IEEE SMC. And possibly the fact I recently got Dragon Age: Origins*.
For those who are unaware, emails were obtained from the CRU (Climate Research Unit) at UEA (University of East Anglia), illictly, and published on the web. Lots of emails, most of which were unimportant and bland.
A few, however, were highlighted as demonstrating bias on the part of some key proponents of the theory that climate change has a human component. Taken in the worst possible light, these emails suggest data might have been omitted from statistical analyses of keynote conference papers, and that intentional scientific inaccuracies might have been included to emphasise their case.
The right - the Torygraph, Times, Guido Fawkes, etc. - have seized upon these emails as proof of scientific misfeasance. The left - the Grauniad, Independent - have instead attacked the hackers for undermining and damaging the case the scientists were making. From the perspective of a published scientist, who has had to defend his work repeatedly at conferences and through lengthy email, letter and phone exchanges, both sides are talking bollocks.
First, the right. The emails do not constitute a refutation of the argument the named scientists presented. They indicate bias. All scientists, despite our innate objectivity, are biased. Einstein was biased against chaos theory - that's why he dedicated so much of his later life to scrapping with Heisenberg - and it didn't stop him being right. Von Braun was biased against the idea of single-stage lunar launch vehicles - didn't stop him being right.
I am biased towards cognitivism over behaviourism in the field of simulated human behaviour. I'm openly biased about it. I debate the merits of both schools of thought at length with my coworkers, some of whom are strongly biased against my view, some of whom are biased in favour of it. The important part is that I do not discount behaviourist ideas simply because I am a cognitivist. I simply seek to find out whether I'm right - not to convince the world that behaviourists are wrong.
If scientists weren't biased, we'd have no cause to investigate anything. If we didn't want to know if our idea worked better than previous ideas, we'd never experiment. The scientists in question believe that humanity has played a part in global climate change, and that global climate change is a fact rather than a hypothesis. They got into the field of research they work in to investigate it, and see if they're right. The fact that, between themselves, they openly admit to having a bias in no way discredits their hypothesis - only independent analysis of the raw data can do that, and even then only if the independent analysis disagrees with their conclusions.
Which brings me onto the other argument - that the hackers have killed the world by giving 'Climate Deniers' an out. First off, the idea endorsed by Toynbee and her fellow jet-setters that Climate Change is the new Holocaust, and those who don't think it is man-made are evil, is daft. Climate science, like most forms of meteorology, is not a simple yes-no field. We don't know everything there is to know. The evidence is in no way wholly conclusive. Scepticism is normal.
All these hackers have done is brought into the open what everybody already knew but didn't want to accept - scientists are human, and have personal biases. What seperates us from the rest of the world is we do not let these personal biases interfere with our work. It requires a strange, detached mindset. It's why, statistically, a greater percentage of research scientists (of both genders) die bachelors and spinsters than most other career paths. We're odd people - and we like it that way.
If anything, the email 'scandal' has helped the science. The CRU, previously not compelled to publish all of its raw data, will now have no option but to publish the complete, raw, unadulterated datasets it has gathered regarding global climate. Other universities who would never otherwise have given a toss about this area will grab that data, and begin their own statistical analyses. More research. More scientific debate. And, the more researchers who work on a project, the greater the odds of finding a consensus that truly represents the meaning of the data.
So the hack has not killed the world. It will not be a simple "Well, two scientists on this project were biased, so every idea they've ever supported is wrong". It will foster a greater, hollistic approach to the field. It will lead to better science.
In conclusion, good luck to the scientists the right-wing media seeks to discredit. I trust you will do the right thing, publish all your raw data, and invite universities across the globe to investigate your findings. And thankyou to the hacker, whether you're a whistleblower or a 4channer, who has succeeded in prompting a complete review of the subject and compelled the release of the raw, scientific data.
Hope everyone's keeping well,
-Will
*I hereby submit Dragon Age: Origins as proof that it is possible for a large, umbrella company such as EA to purchase a smaller games developer without intrinsically preventing it from publishing amazing stuff. DA:O is, to all intents and purposes, the successor to Baldur's Gate. Forget NWN, with it's weak plot and disinteresting henchmen characters. Give an honourable mention to NWN2, for trying to bring back some of the BG formula to Bioware's CFRPGs. But bow and scrape and kneel before DA:O. That is all.
For those who are unaware, emails were obtained from the CRU (Climate Research Unit) at UEA (University of East Anglia), illictly, and published on the web. Lots of emails, most of which were unimportant and bland.
A few, however, were highlighted as demonstrating bias on the part of some key proponents of the theory that climate change has a human component. Taken in the worst possible light, these emails suggest data might have been omitted from statistical analyses of keynote conference papers, and that intentional scientific inaccuracies might have been included to emphasise their case.
The right - the Torygraph, Times, Guido Fawkes, etc. - have seized upon these emails as proof of scientific misfeasance. The left - the Grauniad, Independent - have instead attacked the hackers for undermining and damaging the case the scientists were making. From the perspective of a published scientist, who has had to defend his work repeatedly at conferences and through lengthy email, letter and phone exchanges, both sides are talking bollocks.
First, the right. The emails do not constitute a refutation of the argument the named scientists presented. They indicate bias. All scientists, despite our innate objectivity, are biased. Einstein was biased against chaos theory - that's why he dedicated so much of his later life to scrapping with Heisenberg - and it didn't stop him being right. Von Braun was biased against the idea of single-stage lunar launch vehicles - didn't stop him being right.
I am biased towards cognitivism over behaviourism in the field of simulated human behaviour. I'm openly biased about it. I debate the merits of both schools of thought at length with my coworkers, some of whom are strongly biased against my view, some of whom are biased in favour of it. The important part is that I do not discount behaviourist ideas simply because I am a cognitivist. I simply seek to find out whether I'm right - not to convince the world that behaviourists are wrong.
If scientists weren't biased, we'd have no cause to investigate anything. If we didn't want to know if our idea worked better than previous ideas, we'd never experiment. The scientists in question believe that humanity has played a part in global climate change, and that global climate change is a fact rather than a hypothesis. They got into the field of research they work in to investigate it, and see if they're right. The fact that, between themselves, they openly admit to having a bias in no way discredits their hypothesis - only independent analysis of the raw data can do that, and even then only if the independent analysis disagrees with their conclusions.
Which brings me onto the other argument - that the hackers have killed the world by giving 'Climate Deniers' an out. First off, the idea endorsed by Toynbee and her fellow jet-setters that Climate Change is the new Holocaust, and those who don't think it is man-made are evil, is daft. Climate science, like most forms of meteorology, is not a simple yes-no field. We don't know everything there is to know. The evidence is in no way wholly conclusive. Scepticism is normal.
All these hackers have done is brought into the open what everybody already knew but didn't want to accept - scientists are human, and have personal biases. What seperates us from the rest of the world is we do not let these personal biases interfere with our work. It requires a strange, detached mindset. It's why, statistically, a greater percentage of research scientists (of both genders) die bachelors and spinsters than most other career paths. We're odd people - and we like it that way.
If anything, the email 'scandal' has helped the science. The CRU, previously not compelled to publish all of its raw data, will now have no option but to publish the complete, raw, unadulterated datasets it has gathered regarding global climate. Other universities who would never otherwise have given a toss about this area will grab that data, and begin their own statistical analyses. More research. More scientific debate. And, the more researchers who work on a project, the greater the odds of finding a consensus that truly represents the meaning of the data.
So the hack has not killed the world. It will not be a simple "Well, two scientists on this project were biased, so every idea they've ever supported is wrong". It will foster a greater, hollistic approach to the field. It will lead to better science.
In conclusion, good luck to the scientists the right-wing media seeks to discredit. I trust you will do the right thing, publish all your raw data, and invite universities across the globe to investigate your findings. And thankyou to the hacker, whether you're a whistleblower or a 4channer, who has succeeded in prompting a complete review of the subject and compelled the release of the raw, scientific data.
Hope everyone's keeping well,
-Will
*I hereby submit Dragon Age: Origins as proof that it is possible for a large, umbrella company such as EA to purchase a smaller games developer without intrinsically preventing it from publishing amazing stuff. DA:O is, to all intents and purposes, the successor to Baldur's Gate. Forget NWN, with it's weak plot and disinteresting henchmen characters. Give an honourable mention to NWN2, for trying to bring back some of the BG formula to Bioware's CFRPGs. But bow and scrape and kneel before DA:O. That is all.