2009-11-25 12:00:38 by abowman in Ravings of a Lunatic (no comments) permalink
This is one of many articles on the recent leak of emails and computer modeling code from an important center for climate analysis and global warming research:
Congress May Probe Leaked Global Warming E-Mails [edit: added link]
I see three scenarios here:
The first is that the model and data are bad because there is no inconsistent discipline in the methodology and practice behind the collection and analysis of the data. So much for precision and accuracy.
The second is that the data and the model are subject to intentional bias. So much for seeing what’s there rather than what you want to be there.
Third, both of the first two scenarios are true.
I believe that many of the scientists engaging in climate research have lost their objectivity and are pursuing their personal agendas over pursuing the scientific method. A friend once told me that when researching you must look at all the data–even the data that doesn’t support your hypothesis–and then figure out how to modify your hypothesis to fit the data rather than the other way around.
I believe that global warming has become as much religion as scientific research endeavor. People who object to the “inconvenient truth” that the earth is warming because of human influences are vilified and ostracized. The same applies to people who *agree* with the conclusion that the earth is warming but differ in their analysis of the causes (human-initiated vs. natural cycles). The worst treatment is reserved for people who question whether the earth is really warming or not. To draw a contentious parallel directly from religion: “I believe in Jesus but I do/don’t believe that the bread and wine become his literal body and blood during communion.”
We’re basing multi-billion–possibly multi-trillion–dollar economic policies on complex and buggy computer models that process data of questionable quality. I’m starting to think that scientists need to have something similar to the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles that accountants and financial folk must abide by when writing reports and financial statements. Maybe they need a Sarbanes-Oxley-style requirement for signing their papers and pronouncements and being legally responsible for the accuracy of the contents. Perhaps climate researchers need to spend as much time, effort and money with auditors justifying their data, methodologies and conclusions as a bank does today with its financial information. After all, people are basing financial decisions on public policy driven by global warming research. Why shouldn’t the scientists take responsibility for the accuracy of their predictions.
I think we need an open solution–an open source climate analysis model with open source tools for collecting climate information. If it’s open then people can follow the logic and root out errors, inaccuracy and bias. If there is disagreement, the project can be forked and each group can pursue their vision of climate analysis, but all of it open to public analysis and comment. I would suggest that there be multiple projects from the start and that they compete via comparison of the accuracy of results.
At a minimum the researchers must disclose their all of their methods and data so that we can publicly review it. If the potential threat of global warming is as imminent as they contend and the consequences as dire, then they should be eager to completely reveal their analysis, models and data so that we can see the truth that they see. If they are not willing to reveal it, then we must ask ourselves why they are not.
[edit: added question mark at end of title]