Remember how Climategate was all the rage in the media in 2009. All the anti-climate change zealots grabs on to this like a drowning person grabs on to a life-preserver. The media was publishing all the news about the scandal and everyone was split into 2 camps, the climate change believers, and the non-believers.
It was an outrage. To be fair, both sides were relying on faith. The believers, on faith in the scientific system, and the non-believers on faith in… um… bloggers and um… well, hmm. Bloggers I guess. Which is a bit odd but anyhow. The advantage of believing in the scientific system of course is that we’re surrounded by evidence of its effectiveness. The big flaw in the non-believers argument of course is the “absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence”.
So I was wondering the other day, what was the result of all the outrage and pontification and grandstanding and accusal of betrayal and lying and falsifying data? For such an enormous scandal that rocked the scientific world, I seemed to have missed somewhat the results.
To summarise from Wikipedia (you might have to take this on faith!), basically there were a few methodological issues, and the CRU (the climate unit at the centre of the scandal) needed to be a bit more up-front and release data quicker. But essentially, nothing was found to be wrong and nothing was found to be faked. The chief guy who resigned was re-instated. And the vast majority of scientists support the concept that climate-change is being bought about by humans.
But given that there was weeks of media coverage and commentary saying how bad the scandal was, how come there was not weeks of coverage saying how everything is fine, and the scandal was a gross-misrepresentation by misguided people? And, maybe an apology for the weeks of coverage of a bunch of rubbish? And how come all the climate change nay-sayers didn’t go… oops. Yeah, guess we got that wrong.
But no, no such luck. At its heart, the scientific system is about a bunch of humans trying to out-do each other. A bit like the competition for places in the All Blacks squad. Its not perfect, since humans are uniquely flawed, but it is, on its evidence, the best and most effective system we have. Its a difficult position being a climate-change un-believer, because on one hand, you are using all of the results of hundreds of years of the scientific system. But then the scientific system says “oh yeah, you know the global warming thing. We’re doing that…”. And you go, “ah… well, the scientific system is a bunch of frauds, and we don’t believe anything they say…”, while turning on the scientific air-conditioner in your scientific car, driving down a chemically based road, munching on your scientifically produced big-mac… thats an awful lot of hypocrisy for one person!