The End of Climate Change? Sadly, No

As anyone reading this probably knows by now, two weeks ago computer hackers  broke into the University of East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Unit and stole 1,000 private e-mails.  They then spilled the contents all over the internet, leading to a media firestorm with the hackneyed moniker "Climategate." (For a complete summary, Popular Mechanics has a good comprehensive wrap-up.)

As a person of conscience worried about atmospheric tinkering, this is a travesty. But as a former scientist, it is a fascinating opportunity to discuss how big science is done.  Researchers often say "science is a human endeavor" and the general public assumes this means that scientists regularly fudge  their data to suit their needs. It doesn't. Scientists do not collect data like mushrooms and dump it into some "good science" machine to be analyzed. Dozens, if not hundreds of judgment calls go into every paper that gets published. Questions like "Is this piece of data anomalous?" "Does this belong?" and "Should I drop this piece?" keep scientists up at night.

From the outside, this might look like data tampering, and to be sure the line is fuzzy. But that's statistics, baby. One of the e-mail lines that has garnered particular attention is one where a researcher refers to an analysis tool as a "trick." The blogosphere lit up (with the evening news following along like lost puppies). We're being tricked! I doubt it. As someone who has collected data, I can tell you that it is, like, really hard to analyze. Every set holds stuff that you know doesn't belong and that just clutters the whole batch like cherry pits in a holiday pie. Anything that can pull out the relavant data and leave the noise behind is a cool "trick." Some of these tricks are really fun, where you analyze your own analysis of your analysis. You know those cool fMRI scans that show the human brain with all those colors for activity? They wouldn't exist without some of the most complicated statistical tricks imaginable.

Some of the other e-mails were apparently more nefarious. In one, supposedly powerful scientists plotted to withhold several papers skeptical of climate change from an IPCC report. This is also science behind the curtains. As it happens, not every paper gets into every report. People I trust tell me those papers were not very good science and had sloppy analysis. So the question is, do you include something that you think is bad science? Well, apparently yes. In the end, the scientists weren't all that powerful, because both reports went in anyway.

So what do we learn from this? One, climate science is a huge, endeavor with thousands of moving parts. Two, the public still doesn't really get the way it works, and frankly, who can blame us? Three, people will get fired (Phil Jones will just be the first). Lastly, climate change scientists are weary of the constant mindless assaults on good science. This is not to say all skeptics are mindless, just that the mindless ones are the most tiring.

In this case, weariness drove a few to do something that is a plague to good science. They talked about trying to remove people from important editorial jobs because they published contrary papers. Did they have the power to actually do it? Probably not. It sounded more like bitter grousing than real threats. However, this is the only real sin in this whole "scandal." As scientists, we strive to be above petty politics. We often fail, but in the end, the truth does punch through (just ask Galileo).

And it has punched through. A long time ago. I don't know if the CRU researchers did anything improper; I'll wait to hear. If they did, they deserve to be punished. But even if you threw out the entire CRU's history of research, it would barely dent the case for global climate change. This has been a slow progression since the late 1950's, with data mounted on data, and more data followed by endless arguments and vetting to get us to where we are today. It's not conspiracy, its inertia.

Nature, the world's preeminent peer-reviewed journal had an excellent editorial that I encourage everyone to read before getting excited over the evening news. These are the guys who deal with  scientific malfeasance (remember the Soth Korean human cloner?). They stand behind the papers, tricks and all. Sadly, that won't stop this whole thing from gumming up Copenhagen. Which, of course, was the goal the whole time.