The theft of emails and files from the computer system at one of the world’s most respected science centers was a gift for those opposed to the notion that humans are largely responsible for climate change. Selective interpretations of some messages, coupled with imprudent comments by some scientists, frustrated by years of attacks, has strengthened what much of the public seems ready to believe – that scientists have lied about the extent and severity of global climate change.
The result: Many researchers are hunkering down and waiting for the storm to blow over, convinced that eventually the facts and data will convince those opposed and those oblivious that the threat is real.
It’s understandably human to move away from strife, to avoid confrontation with those whose passion has overrun their reason.
But climate scientists need to reject that reaction.
They need to heed the call of one of their own, voiced in San Francisco this week at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union. Ben Santer, a respected researcher at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and a former recipient of one of the prestigious MacArthur, or “Genius,” grants, set the stage.
Just before his scheduled address to an audience of earth scientists, he went off-script with a personal plea and warning. In part, he said:
These “forces of unreason” seek to constrain our ability to speak truth to power. They seek to skew and distort what we know about the nature and causes of climate change. Having failed to undermine climate science itself, they seek to destroy the reputations of individual climate scientists. They seek to destroy men . . . who have devoted their entire careers to the pursuit of scientific knowledge and understanding.
We must not let this stand.
We no longer have the luxury of remaining silent on these issues. We all have voices. We need to use them.
His call to arms, emailed to more than 150 of the leading researchers in the field, will be difficult for many scholars. Scientists are inherently committed to the premise that the value of facts and data will eventually outlast any misrepresentation or fabrication, that “staying the course” will eventually win the day.
That, they say, is the way science works.
But in today’s world, “spin” often reigns and the wrappings often outshine whatever a package may contain. The idea that patient diligence will eventually succeed is more than simple naïve – it may be dangerous.
Scholars need to find a comfortable middle ground between their historical reluctance to engage in public debate over science, and the current push for them to be politically active.
Finding such a path shouldn’t be so hard for those who make discoveries for a living.
The above was written by the vice-president for research communications at Ohio State. With due respect, I think I disagree (or maybe I misunderstand). Science is the quest for truth. Once scientists abandon that premise to engage in political debate, the quest for truth is gone. Political debate over science results in stubborness, selectivity and an unwillingness to question one's own position. Without a willingness to question one's own findings, science simply becomes entrenched opinion guided by public will. Maybe, as Vice-President Holland suggests, I am being naive, and perhaps dangerous, but I would rather see a policy process informed by sound science, rather than unsound science informed by politics.
