Canadian Spectator

November 22, 2009

MAKING SURE THAT CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH IS REAL SCIENCE, NOT POLITICS

Scientists' emails suggest that climate warming data were fudged

These emails provide no evidence of scientific fraud. However, they suggest a powerful bias among some climate researchers in the assessment of both data and ideas. Such bias can be as conducive to error as outright fraud, and stems from the same cause: a fixed preconception of what is to be discovered -- in this case, the preconception being that rising atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide will lead to an inexorable rise in global temperature.

Yet such a preconception is quite unreasonable. Yes, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere traps some outgoing infra-red radiation, but the effect is already half-way to saturation and there are many other so called "forcings" that have impacts of comparable magnitude, some positive some negative. Black carbon particles, or soot, for example, mainly from combustion of diesel oil, absorb sunlight and raise the temperature; sulfate particles, which are white, and are produced mainly by burning sulfur-laden coal, reflect sunlight and lower the temperature. Deforestation, probably has a net cooling effect despite the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide that it causes, because trees are highly efficient (up to 99%) at trapping incident solar radiation and transferring that energy as heat (sensible or latent) to the trophosphere. Then there is water, which as vapor, is not only the most important "greenhouse gas" but, in the form of cloud, can either trap outgoing infra-red radiation or reflect incoming solar radiation, depending on cloud height, time of day and many other factors.

Previously, I have argued that scientific fraud rarely has significant consequences for science. However, bad science, whether fraudulent or merely biased by preconceived notions of the "correct" result can have massive social consequences, from wars based on false interpretation of intelligence data, to hugely expensive investment in bad research with worthy social goals (e.g., the search for a cure for AIDS), or the restructuring of the world economy to prevent a falsely predicted catastrophe (e.g., as a result of climate change).

Climate change research has been subject to political manipulation from the outset, with consequent social costs in the form of both bad research and bad economic policy.

Climate change research is important. Better science in this field could be assured by a sharp cut in funding, say, 90%, with what remains -- still amounting to $billions, going only to those picked for their unquestionable integrity, relevant expertise and exceptional competence.

Permanent link