These are some of the take-home messages or lessons from “climategate” as I see it. They are strongly related to each other, with the overriding theme being that disagreements about climate change are not so much about the science, but rather about a clash of underlying values, ideas (e.g. related to risk perception) and ideals. Scientists are caught in the middle of this trying to defend the science against various distortions (while also having their own values, ideas and ideals of course).
– There’s no strong relation between knowledge/information and people’s perceptions: Just the facts won’t do. It’s all about the narrative. Climategate resonated because it could easily be spun into the underdog fighting the mean establishment. Scientists and those communicating the science should take a lesson from this: Don’t be such a scientist when communicating with non-scientists. Tell a story rather then flooding people with facts, numbers and uncertainty intervals. Steven Mosher, in a comment at Judith Curry’s, points to another lesson to be taken from this: Focusing on the consensus feeds into this underdog-versus-establishment narrative. I think he’s got a point there, though of course it is based on a faulty dismissal of a scientific consensus as being meaningless. Perhaps we should stress that the consensus is not monolithic, but rather concerns the big picture only, and even there it is still a bell curve of viewpoints rather than unanimous agreement.
– Climate science is embedded in a wild sea of culturally differing views, where values and ideals clash. Scientists should consider this (partly hostile) public environment when communicating about climate science. Retreating in the ivory tower of academia would be a detriment to the public discussion. I think we should consider strategically effective ways to convey scientific insights to the public and policymakers.
– The animosity towards climate science is even greater than we thought it was. Those who object to the perceived policy consequences of the mainstream scientific view go through great lengths in order to try to discredit the science. This has had an effect on how scientists and their supporters communicate (or not) with the public: Many have gotten afraid for speaking out publicly, while some others have gotten more strident or even defensive. Both reactions are understandable, even though neither are useful imho.
– Not directly a consequence of climategate, though it did bring it into clearer focus, is that there are many other aspects besides science that influence one’s policy preferences. It applies to those who argue the science as a proxy for arguing the politics, but it also applies to defenders of the science; it applies to everyone. Endless arguments about sea level rise in 2100 are perhaps not so useful when the underlying disagreement is much more about different values (e.g. about valuing the present versus the future; freedom versus responsibility; how to deal with risk) than about the Greenland ice sheet. This is tricky though, because scientists and their supporters (I really need to come up with a proper word) will still feel the need to defend the mainstream scientific view against distortions. I don’t know how to best deal with that catch 22.
– The need for increased transparency and openness of data and code is now widely shared. I think this is an inevitable and inevitably difficult process, but “climategate” reinforced the importance of such transparency for public trust and credibility. It will not convince the more fanatic “skeptics” out there, nor will it prevent such smear campaigns from happening again in the future. But it will help to make the wider public, who are more or less agnostic about the topic, more immune to various accusations of secrecy and fraud. And that’s important.
– Citizen science has taken off over the last year. I’m not sure if it’s just anecdotal evidence based on my blog reading or a sign of a real trend (where’s VS if you need him ;-) but I have a feeling that there’s much more interest and participation amongst non climate scientists in actually doing analyses themselves, most notably related to the temperature record. And some good work is coming out of that. I don’t regard it as a dramatic change in how science overall is conducted (its effect is much more on the public trust and perception), but it’s an interesting development nevertheless, and a more productive way of using one’s energy than blogospheric shouting matches.
Other reading:
Visit climatesight for a good and readable summary of “climategate”. See the Yale forum for an interesting collection of scientists’ view on lessons learnt. I get a sense that overall, many of them don’t disagree with my rant about how low of an action this was. Gavin retells the story of what happened over at RC.
Update: The second installment at the Yale forum is up, about science journalists’s views of lessons learned. Elizabeth Kolbert’s answer to what journalism should have learned is noteworthy (my comments in […]):
The obvious lesson of faux scandals like “climategate” is that they tend to be created by groups or individuals with their own agendas, and journalists ought to be very wary about [uncritically] covering them. The notion that there is some huge scientific conspiracy going on, involving dozens of researchers at different institutions, is pretty implausible on its face. This goes for climate science as for all other scientific disciplines. I’m not saying it can’t happen; it’s just hard to imagine how it would work. Conversely, it’s very easy to imagine why an individual or a group with an economic or political [or ideological] interest would want to claim that such a conspiracy existed. The burden of proof ought to be very high. Instead, it seems the bar was placed ridiculously low.
Tags: Climate science, Climategate, credibility, lesson, public trust
My view on climate change 
November 23, 2010 at 16:52
Bart,
Thanks for a thoughtful post. I specifically agree with: “There’s no strong relation between knowledge/information and people’s perceptions”.
Absolutely. This applies to everyone, including scientists… even climate scientists. There is (of course) a range of opinion among those who describe themselves as climate scientists, but the public perception (right or wrong) is most climate scientists, at least those who interact with the public, are strongly committed to policies that will lead to large and rapid reductions in CO2 emissions, even if these reductions will come at substantial economic cost to individuals and the public at large. I do not doubt that these views are sincerely held and honestly presented. And I do not doubt that these views are in fact “informed” by science. But I also do not believe these views are divorced from the personal political and moral views of those scientists. Lots of people (rightly or wrongly) do not trust that scientists who vigorously advocate specific policy action are able to not have their politics influence the “narrative” they present to the public.
Climate scientists would do well to focus on the data. If a narrative must be used to provide information, then that narrative ought to be rigorously tied to what is actually known about what is likely to happen. There is nothing I have seen that is more damaging to the credibility of climate science than the too frequent focus on catastrophic consequences with unknown (but likely very low) probability of actually happening.
November 23, 2010 at 18:21
Citizen science has taken off over the last year… there’s much more interest and participation amongst non climate scientists in actually doing analyses themselves, most notably related to the temperature record.
But is it if any value? Or rather, given the amount of effort involved, is there value commensurate to the effort? CCC was and is good, but it is the one shining example.
November 23, 2010 at 19:39
I think William hits the nail right on its head. You’ll find the occasional golden nugget amongst an enormous amount of…errr…horse droppings. Do we really want to dig through all the manure? It’s hard enough to weed through the bad articles in scientific journals!
November 23, 2010 at 20:59
William, Marco,
I think there are more good examples. Whether the ratio between effort and and value is any good, I wouldn’t have a clue, but it’s definitely better than if the effort would have gone into endless discussions that go nowhere (said he a little cynically).
Other examples include e.g. Martin Vermeer teaming up with Stefan Rahmstorf (perhaps not so much citizen science, but this study had its roots in the blogosphere, and it’s a very strong paper I find), the many temp reconstructions out there, where esp Zeke Hausfather has done quite some analyses that go beyond “just” adding another reconstruction. But indeed, for climate science as a whole, it is hardly noticeable. But it could serve as a constructive outlet for technically minded interested individuals, and who knows what interesting things may come up.
November 23, 2010 at 21:49
What would Citizen Science provide that regular science can’t? My take is that it has the potential to bridge the gap between science and either the general public or interested scientists from other disciplines. Bart uses the RC example “The making of a sea level study” which helps to do just that, although I find RC stuff is often geared towards those with some level or competence/expertise.
There are other sites like SkepticalScience that don’t do a lot of original research or analysis, but instead accurately summarize the existing body of academic literature on various topics, with different levels (basic, intermediate, advanced) geared towards different readers.
Can Citizen Science actually improve the field of climate science significantly? Even with quality examples like CCC, I’m not so sure – perhaps marginally. The robust work that comes out of such efforts can always be published. Robust analysis will always make its way into the academic literature eventually, no matter where it comes from.
One notable case is the excellent meticulous work of DeepClimate, which has basically filled the role of auditing the auditors, and has revealed significant problems with the “work” (if you want to call it that) of Wegman and McIntyre. DeepClimate certainly involves original analysis. It’s given the Wegman Report an independent peer review it never had.
Sadly, though, much (if not most) of the amateur stuff is from those with a strong ideological or political bent against climate science. There’s a strong public demand for climate contrarianism and many willing to fill that demand, by hook or by crook. The goals can be relative fame as someone fighting the “establishment”, and the power trip gained from filling such a role, or a desire to give the public impression that climate science is corrupt, weak, inadequate, shaky, etc. The goal isn’t to advance science, but to tear it down, and it’s fueled by those with a common interest.
November 24, 2010 at 02:01
Interesting and useful post, Bart. One lesson that I think climate scientists should be learning at the moment (not necessarily directly from Climategate, but certainly from the current political “atmosphere”) is that it can be counterproductive to get ahead of the best established science. Scientists would be better off avoiding speculation (too many papers still have “could” and “might” scattered through them) and should be discerning as to what is the soundest science and what is still open to dispute.
My personal plea in addition to that is that it would be nice if a few more climate scientists could see the glass as half full, rather than half empty. It’s not going to happen, though. No funding in saying everything will be OK. :-)
November 24, 2010 at 08:10
Whatever the value of citizen science, it is welcomed and encouraged in astronomy, ornithology, computer science, mathematics, biochemistry and other disciplines. It has been met mostly with dismissive hostility by climate science.
November 24, 2010 at 08:59
Whatever the value of citizen science, it is welcomed and encouraged in astronomy, ornithology, computer science, mathematics, biochemistry and other disciplines. It has been met mostly with dismissive hostility by climate science.
Maybe that’s because there has never been libertarian/fossil fuel sponsored denial machine in astronomy, ornithology, computer science, mathematics, biochemistry and other disciplines, that distorted the science from the onset to create as much doubt and confusion as possible, turning off scientists many, many moons before you came along and acted all smart, as if climate science had a history dating back just a few years?
Some historical perspective wouldn’t go amiss.
Ornithology… Give me a break. :-|
November 24, 2010 at 10:29
Paul K,
At the risk of starting a chicken egg discussion, from where I’m sitting many of the “citizen-scientist-styled-skeptics” haven been very dismissive and hostile towards the mainstream science, often interspersed with insinuations of fraud, hoax and global communist governance. Then it’s no wonder that scientists are initially dismissive of their criticism/contribution (depending on your perspective). I elaborated in my post on citizen science.
November 24, 2010 at 12:59
Actually while ornithology is particularly famous for excellent citizen science, its movement into conservation organisations like Audubon and RSPB has led to a bird world fraught with deniers, tree-hugging doomsters, capitalist self-interested landowners, hunters, scare science predicting multiple extinctions, advocacy groups raising money predicting doom while doing excellent work, values – it’s a mirror of climate science!
And, echoing Alex H above, it’s funny how so much of the RSPB research is glass half empty. It’s also often funny how RSPB-owned land is no better in diversity than under previous fossil-fuel, I mean hunting and shooting owners. Think Geltsdale, a moor I used to visit several times a year until they bought it.
November 24, 2010 at 13:42
Paul Kelly, the other scientific fields you mention which have strong input from citizen scientists enjoy the benefit of actual citizen scientists trying to further knowledge as a whole. Compare this to the blatant efforts of pseudoscientific obfuscators who do their damnedest to reduce knowledge. This does not apply only to climate sciences but also to HIV/AIDS and vaccine research. The citizen scientists who contribute to the research you mention also have this uncanny habit of spending much of their time gathering data, again in stark contrast withi the trophy hunters who infest the blogosphere with their ersatz auditing in the hope they get to mount a head or two on the wall while putting in as little effort or risk as is humanly possible, after expecting everything to be handed to them on a plate. I’m certain that was never the intent or modus operandi of notable citizen scientist Guy Callendar.
Another feature of the genuine citizen scientist mostly lacking in the field of climate is their willingness to submit their work to rigorous peer review, instead opting for the safe haven of the blogosphere where they can make faux claim to the post normal practice often referred to as “extended peer review”.
Yes, there have been noteable exceptions which Bart points out, but try not confuse them with the snake oil salesmen who run the danger of being hung on the coat tails of the real deal.
November 24, 2010 at 16:17
Hi Bart,
Once again I think you have missed the mark on several key issues, including the extent to which the Hockey Team brought this situation upon themselves by their behaviour.
Also, the citizen science I have seen over the past year has been very bad–but it has been performed by people with names like Angliss, Prall and Mashey, not by skeptics.
I doubt if you’ll agree with me, but really, Bart, I’d hate to see the last year wasted because people like you don’t see it in perspective.
November 24, 2010 at 17:09
Hi Tom,
Let’s say we see it in a different perspective.
In this post though I didn’t talk about why it happened and its context; that was the topic of two posts earlier (where I’d expect much more disagreement with you than on this current post actually)
November 24, 2010 at 17:18
@TF: so you can’t think of any good citizen science over the last year, then?
November 24, 2010 at 17:45
Tom Fuller, do you actually know what citizen science is, or are you just not even any good at creating straw men these days?
November 24, 2010 at 19:13
> [I]ncluding the extent to which the Hockey Team brought this situation upon themselves by their behaviour.
Yes, The Team Made Fuller Do It.
November 25, 2010 at 00:40
The answer to the chicken – egg question is, of course, the rooster. As a non scientist, the number one lesson to be learned from climategate is be careful in emails sent and received on company computers.
“Perhaps we should stress that the consensus is not monolithic, but rather concerns the big picture only, and even there it is still a bell curve of viewpoints rather than unanimous agreement.” That would be a good start.
“we should consider strategically effective ways to convey scientific insights to the public and policymakers.” This task has been assigned to the IPCC/COP and their national subsets for more than 20 years.
November 25, 2010 at 01:26
There is a climate-related citizen scientist activity that has none of the hallmarks of the utter garbage spilled by McIntyre/Watts/et.al. It’s called “CoCoRAHS”. Look it up on da Web.
November 25, 2010 at 07:45
Check out CWOP for some more citizen science.
Paul Middents
DW1622
November 25, 2010 at 12:21
I think you have a point with your reference to a bell curve of opinion.
A very successful narrative for the anti-AGW lobby is to claim that:
– “Alarmists” like the IPCC are at one extreme, claiming a consensus.
– “Extreme skeptics” sit at the other extreme (whoever it is most convenient to categorise as extreme).
– The most obvious position for a moderate, rational individual to take up is somewhere in the middle – it is human nature to do so.
Whereas the bell-curve is significantly different to that, with extremists far to either side, and the IPCC position somewhere near the middle. Successfully framing the IPCC position as “extremist” means that any position less extreme than that will be instantly more palatable to a public who percieve a controversy.
It also helps that – in my experience – many “skeptics” claim their position to be the most common and representative. This means it is easy to find more extreme anti-AGW views to frame their own position as an appealing middle-ground, while also handily allowing any attempt to address views that they personally claim not to hold as a “straw man” (ie, no “true” skeptic believes there is no 20th century warming/CO2 doesn’t have a warming effect/sea levels aren’t rising etc etc).
Scientists have a far more difficult job than “skeptics” in this. Scientists are trying to educate and inform, but “skeptics” don’t have to do that. There is absolutely no requirement for the public to understand and embrace some coherent skeptical picture to stall action on climate change – all that is necessary is that enough controversy is generated that the current scientific case is *not* accepted.
November 25, 2010 at 12:56
Dave,
Good point. It is indeed the successful framing of the IPCC as alarmist that has caused much damage in terms of scientific literacy of the public.
See e.g. mt’s sketch of the distribution of professional opinion and figure 1 of this survey.
November 25, 2010 at 16:45
Bart, you are suggesting that the IPCC are framed as alarmist in the mind of the public, which may well be so.
The word ‘successful’ suggests this was deliberate policy by sceptics? I think that gives them too much credit. The media, with willing collusion of some scientists and certainly willing collusion of WWF et al, have achieved this image of AGW/IPCC.
As Zorita said on Klimazwiebel: ‘For me the media played a very important role. In my limited experience with them, they did tend to distort and highlight the most alarmist aspects and downplay any mention of uncertainty. Some scientist did voluntarily used the media as a loudspeaker.’
November 26, 2010 at 00:21
Well, well, well, we have come a long way since the science was settled.
Since the debate was over.
Weather is not climate, but for most people the are very closely related.
Winter is a bad season for climatologists, especially when it is freezing.
People’s perceptions will be what they will be.
You can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time.
November 26, 2010 at 03:42
You can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time.
Except for the people over at WUWT. :-B
November 26, 2010 at 09:44
To illustrate my point about people’s perceptions:
http://www.depers.nl/winter
November 26, 2010 at 10:14
How timely
November 26, 2010 at 10:29
Bart, my sarcasm is the least of your problems.
Public opinion is getting weary of alarmism, just as it did in the acid rain scare.
But maybe that is beyond the this blogs horizon.
November 26, 2010 at 14:42
Hans, the laws of physics are not subject to the whims of public opinion.
November 26, 2010 at 16:17
> Public opinion is getting weary of alarmism […]
Join the bandwagon!
November 26, 2010 at 19:39
Deech56,
Skepticism of alarmism does not require a misunderstanding of the laws of physics. Nor has alarmism proved effective as a method of conveying the science.
November 26, 2010 at 19:39
Hans — “Public opinion is getting weary of alarmism, just as it did in the acid rain scare.”
Are you saying there was no problem with acid rain?
November 26, 2010 at 20:28
who’s never heard of parthenogenesis, apparently …
November 27, 2010 at 21:36
J Bowers,
The Ozone and Acid Rain problems dissappeared but is there evidence that it was the result of policy actions or were they problems that corrected themselves? I realize that many people want to believe that there was a causal relationship but wanting to believe and knowing are 2 different things.
November 28, 2010 at 00:23
TimG, why don’t you do your own research, on sites that are reliable on the underlying science, and get back to us?
(prediction: he’ll come back with pointers to screeds by junkscience and the like, but I would love to be proved wrong.)
November 28, 2010 at 05:08
TimG — “The Ozone and Acid Rain problems dissappeared but is there evidence that it was the result of policy actions or were they problems that corrected themselves?”
Did they correct themselves by magic, or is this another case of the bloody-minded needing the planet to be ruined in order to prove that the planet can actually be ruined?
November 28, 2010 at 06:32
J Bowers,
The Chinese used to shoot fireworks to stop the celestial dragon from devouring the sun (a.k.a solar eclipse). Their method was extremely effective given the observed evidence at the time. How do we know that the the same kind of delusion is not going on with the ozone and acid rain? (i.e. we simply do not understand why the changes occurred and any correlation with our activities is a coincidence).
November 28, 2010 at 09:21
TimG:
1. The effects of dissolving SO2 and NOx in solution are well known: they make that solution acidic
2. There is absolutely no doubt that industrial activity emits large amounts of SO2 and NOx.
1+2=3. Reducing SO2 and NOx emissions will reduce severity of acid rain.
Ah, but is there proof?
Yes!
http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/airwaste/aq/acidrain/isomaps.htm
Just one example of an isopleth map showing how reduction in SO2 and NOx emissions reduced acid rain. You can find more such data on the internet.
Of course this is indirect evidence, but I’d be interested to know what other mechanism you could imagine for the increase in rain pH, considering points 1-3…
November 28, 2010 at 11:21
Acid rain (see this Dutch report concluding that measures taken had an appreciable effect on diminishing the problem) and Chinese fireworks are off topic, guys. If you want an open thread for continuing this, lemme know.
November 28, 2010 at 14:27
Bart,
Many citizens of the world, especially in the US and the UK, have performed an enormous service to climate science.
Nothing ever exists solely because it wants to – things always fill a vacuum.
Small influential groups have harmed the self-protective mechanisms in climate science. The long term effect of these maneuvers cannot be foreseen easily. But this is a common thing in science – certain people are always afflicted with the “social marketing”mentality. They work to win political influence their discipline has over larger affairs at all cost. I know who these people are in my profession, for example, I am sure you know such people in your field too.
What we are now being told, is that all of climate science and scientists, completely agree with formulations these people have come up with, regarding their discipline (i.e., IPCC chapter summaries, SPM, SYR etc).
I would say, professionally, climate science is in a sorry state right now. It has no whistleblower, it has no watchdog, it ostracizes its mavericks and drives them out. Of course, this does not have to reflect on individual climate scientists. But then, this course has been charted out for climate science by its ardent science advocates – “let us reach the top and entrench, we can fix our issues later”.
November 28, 2010 at 18:59
Marco,
Thanks. Got anything equivalent for Ozone?
November 28, 2010 at 19:33
Bart, I’ll keep it short.
TimG, you can start here:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/
Bit trickier to show the effect of emission reductions, due to the longevity of CFCs in the upper atmosphere (we’re talking decades).
November 28, 2010 at 22:54
J Bowers Says:
Hans — “Public opinion is getting weary of alarmism, just as it did in the acid rain scare.”
Are you saying there was no problem with acid rain?
You are right (and Bart too).
Acid rain was a serious problem and it was tackled in time by good measures like switching from coal to natural gas and fitting catalysts in cars.
November 29, 2010 at 04:56
Fuller, it has not escaped astute attention that the ‘smoking gun’ in this PR exercise has turned out to be the discovery that when real temperatures trend up, while proxies meander down, some scientists will cheerfully paste the former over the latter .
That whole websites are devoted to ignoring this bottom line tells us more about their proprietors motives than the scientists they denounce.
Disinformation had its day in the late unlamented Cold War. Get over it.
November 29, 2010 at 20:01
As a life-long amateur scientist interested in theoretical and computational physics, working in general relativity, meteorology, astrophysics, etc. for more than thirty years I am offended by the attitude that we can’t participate! It is stupid to assume that the only way to achieve knowledge and capability is through standardized degree programs. I have done as much background work as anyone, studying topics such as differential geometry, partial differential equations, numerical analysis, data analysis, and the like. I am currently writing a book on classical mechanics with Leonard Susskind! I have paid my dues and you have no right to tell me, or anyone else, that I can’t contribute! It is outrageous! I have seen as much dumb crap from so-called professionals as from amateurs, or in this politically correct age, Citizen Scientists. It wasn’t all that long ago when most scientists were amateurs. The word amateur has fallen into an equivalence with incompetent, but it also means pursuing something for the joy of it, not just for the money.
Just my two cents-worth.
November 29, 2010 at 20:17
George H,
I assume you’re not addressing your comment to me, as I’ve never claimed that you or anyone else can’t contribute. By all means, be my guest. Read my linked post on citizen science for more background on how I view the majority of amateur efforts so far. That of course doesn’t mean it can’t be improved upon.
November 29, 2010 at 21:54
FWIW acid rain was solved by putting scrubbers onto smokestacks in power plants, especially coal fired ones and putting limits onto sulfur in diesel and gasoline from the refineries. AFAEKs the cat converters in autos and trucks mostly get NOx which is the precursor to ozone, and yes, this disagrees with a lot of stuff on the google, but a lot of stuff about the converters looks a bit fey.
November 30, 2010 at 19:57
Shub says —
“Many citizens of the world, especially in the US and the UK, have performed an enormous service to climate science….
Who do you mean precisely? Try naming names.
“…climate science is in a sorry state right now. It has no whistleblower,…”
The vast majority of scientific malfeasance is revealed by “whistleblowers”, be it by an investigator’s colleagues or their own students. Okkam’s Razor says there is good reason that there are no whistleblowers in climate science, because there are, quite frankly, no whistles to be blown.
December 2, 2010 at 23:23
“FWIW acid rain was solved by putting scrubbers onto smokestacks in power plants, especially coal fired ones and putting limits onto sulfur in diesel and gasoline from the refineries. ”
Yup. And the power companies screamed bloody murder. Some things never change:
http://www.pewglobalwarming.org/…/PEG_IndustryOpposition_Oct2010.pdf
“When the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act
gave the EPA responsibility for regulating sulfur
dioxide under the Acid Rain Program, the utility
industry claimed the program would increase costs for
ratepayers, jeopardize electricity reliability and thwart
development of clean coal technologies. In testimony
before the House subcommittee on energy and
power, Southern Co. President Edward Addison cited
a study from the Edison Electric Institute claiming
the proposed law would initially cost ratepayers $5.5
billion annually and increase to $7.1 billion annually in
2000. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
reevaluated the program in 2003 (including the cost
of acid rain permits, administering the allowance
system, monitoring emissions and fees for excess
emissions appeals) from the program’s inception
and found costs were between $1.1 billion and $1.8
billion a year. The agency’s report also examined the
overall benefits and costs of all clean air regulations
(including the Acid Rain Program) over the previous
10 years. OMB measured benefits by fewer hospital
and emergency room visits, a lower rate of premature
deaths and a reduction in workdays lost to illness.
OMB valued these benefits to be between $118 billion
and $177 billion annually, while it cost $18 billion to
$21 billion to retrofit power plants to comply with the
new clean air regulations.”
August 1, 2011 at 00:19
This site is crazy :) very young lola nude sxqo
August 1, 2011 at 01:52
Wonderfull great site preteen model lol cp >:DD