Sociology of Science: the IPCC Case

Climate change is off-topic for evolution news, but what is taking place in this internationally-potent paradigm is instructive.  Its troubles provide fodder for several extra-scientific disciplines: the philosophy of science, the history of science, the rhetoric of science, and the sociology of science.  Lessons from the IPCC case can inform citizens about current scientific practices in general – especially highly politicized sciences like evolution.
    What the world is witnessing in the IPCC case is astonishing – perhaps unprecedented.  Within a few months, a solid international consensus has unraveled.  It began days before a huge international conference in Copenhagen that was to impose draconian measures on world governments to curb carbon emissions.  Emails leaked or stolen revealed something rotten at the IPCC, the international clearinghouse for climate science.  Climate skeptics immediately smelled blood; their criticisms went viral on the internet.  It didn’t help that Copenhagen suffered one of its coldest winters as politicians traipsed through the snow and cold to figure out how to fight global warming.  Relevant or not, the irony was not lost on the public.
    At first, the response of the scientific community to the Climategate email scandal was to circle the wagons, underestimate the scandal’s impact, and blame the naysayers for their ignorance of the scientific facts.  But then, additional scandals came to light, exposing failures in peer review, lapses in scholarship, and evident conflicts of interest.  The disconnect between Big Science’s overconfidence and public skepticism has been growing steadily to the point where even staunch supporters of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) are calling for deep reforms.  Here are a few recent data points in the ongoing saga.

1. American opinion about global warming is cooling, reported Science Daily.
2. The BBC News, originally in the wagon circle, has lately been more open about reporting breaches of ethics that have eroded public confidence in climate science.
3. The BBC News, at first supportive of the IPCC, reported that the University of East Anglia where the scandal erupted “breached data laws” by withholding data when it was requested by skeptical scientists.  The article acknowledged that the incident caused damage to the public interest.  The university manipulated and suppressed data in a way that was “at odds with acceptable scientific practice.”
4. The journal Nature, originally in a huff over climate skeptics, has started printing some papers that are not as confident about AGW, such as this paper Jan 28 that considered degrees of climate feedback throughout the medieval period.
5. Science Daily reported that stratospheric water vapor turns out to be a “climate wild card,” affecting climate models in unexpected ways.
6. Science Magazine on Jan 29 printed an interview with IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri when calls for his resignation were heating up.  The magazine allowed him free rein to defend himself against allegations, which he did rather brusquely, but the interviewer questions seemed a little worried.
7. On Feb 2, Nature acknowledged that the IPCC has been “flooded with criticism” and took note that some of the criticisms, including data flaws and conflicts of interest, are not easily dismissable.
8. BBC commentator Malini Mehra said that “The Copenhagen Climate Accord was a failure of historic proportions that is hardly worth the paper it is printed on.”  The meetings led to a chaos of competing national self-interests.
9. BBC commentator Roger Harrabin has been growing more vocal about reform.  On Feb 1 he called for embracing uncertainty rather than pretending that the consensus science is settled.  On Feb 3 he discussed problems at the IPCC and entertained reasons why its leader should resign.
10. Richard Black’s commentaries for the BBC News have been evolving.  From initial overconfidence, he has been having to admit the scientific consensus is taking a beating.  He acknowledged on Feb 5 that skepticism is rising in the UK, noting several prominent British commentators speaking out and polls showing public discontent with the IPCC.
11. This week Science Magazine reported on the latest scandal, the misinformation about melting glaciers.  The magazine also printed an Editorial preaching about the need for integrity in science.
12. News outlets that a month ago seemed sold out to the AGW consensus are now showing some courage to give skeptical stories favorable press.  Today, Science Daily printed a story that estimates of melt from Alaskan glaciers were largely overestimated, and another Science Daily article questioned scientists’ knowledge about orbital forcing: “The notion that scientists understand how changes in Earth’s orbit affect climate well enough for estimating long-term natural climate trends that underlie any anthropogenic climate change is challenged by findings just published.”  See also the 12/19/2009 entry about cave proxies.
13. Another day, another embarrassment: PhysOrg reported that the Dutch found an inaccurate statement in the IPCC’s 2007 report, claiming that half of the Netherlands is below sea level.  “No evidence could be found to show the claim had been published in a peer-reviewed journal and reports in Britain have said the reference came from green group the WWF [World Wildlife Federation], who in turn sourced it to the New Scientist magazine.”  Normally, scientific findings flow the other direction.
14. New Scientist, a cheerleader for the IPCC, nevertheless called to “Let the sunshine in” and embrace open debate, including dialogue with bloggers and skeptics.  Notice how the editorial even suggested the possibility a naked emperor on the loose:
    

    Some argue that the views of an untutored blogger, or even a scientist from another discipline, should never carry the same weight as those of someone with a lifetime’s expertise in a relevant field.  But if occasionally the emperors of the lab have no clothes, someone has to say so.  The wider review of science made possible by the blogosphere can improve science and foster public confidence in its methods.  Scientists should welcome the outside world in to check them out.  Their science is useless if no one trusts it.

15. AfricaGate: Now another widely-quoted factoid about global warming has come under attack: that North Africa’s crop production would drop by 50% by 2020.  The Times Online reported Feb 7 there was no basis in the IPCC report for such a claim, but it had been quoted by the IPCC chairman and by the UN Secretary-General.  “A leading British government scientist has warned the United Nations’ climate panel to tackle its blunders or lose all credibility,” the article began.

These are just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak.  Time and space do not allow coverage of the torrent of articles dealing with the question: how reliable is the consensus about global warming?  What does this tell us about scientific practice?  It goes without saying that the skeptics are having a field day: sites like Climate Depot and SEPP are rushing to put out all the hot news with unmasked glee.  But when even the ardent supporters of the consensus are calling for reforms and resignations, and are starting to print scientific papers challenging the consensus, it’s a hint that this is big.  It may just turn out to put the Revolution back in Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions, the 1962 book that launched whole disciplines devoted to critically analyzing knowledge generation in science.
    Creationists and leaders of the intelligent design movement are, for the most part, siding with the skeptics.  Several commentators on the ID blog Uncommon Descent have joined the war dance, especially Barry Arrington and Andrew Sibley.  Moderator and ID leader William Dembski noted that Whistleblower Magazine, a publication of conservative World Net Daily, made the climate scandals a centerpiece of its latest issue, “Hijacking Science.”  The subtitle gives the flavor of the issue: “From ‘global warming’ to biology to psychology to sociology, blatant corruption of science is running rampant.”  At least four of the articles in the issue deal with evolution. 

This commentary is not taking sides on AGW, since it is off-topic.  But there are important lessons here for all of science.  It goes without saying that scientists are only human, but that’s the problem: scientists are only human.  They have emotions, biases, friends, enemies, likes, dislikes, habits and weaknesses like the rest of humanity.  They are also not omniscient.  We are taught that the methods of science and peer review overcome these limitations, and produce knowledge that is reliable, progressive and relevant to nature as it really is.  Oh?  That is so 1930s.  It may still be taught in middle schools and high schools, but the philosophy of science has been quite literally revolutionized since the 1950s and 60s.  Kuhn’s book in particular launched or re-invigorated several disciplines that began to analyze scientific practice more critically:

• History of Science changed from describing science’s march of progress to a different realization: that scientific knowledge itself is historical in character – i.e., it changes over time.  Ideas claimed to be scientific facts in one generation can be fundamentally modified or overturned in the next.
• Sociology of Science: Kuhn’s description of science as a guild locked in a paradigm led to renewed attempts to examine the human element of knowledge generation: the cliques, reinforcements, shared beliefs, taboos and other non-empirical aspects that influence conclusions in scientific institutions.  Some took on the project of analyzing science scientifically, going into labs to describe the way scientists work in the way they would investigate a tribal culture.  Postmodernism overlapped with these efforts.  For sources on the history and sociology of science, see the 12/19/2009 and 04/18/2009 Resources of the Week.
• Rhetoric of Science sprang up as a discipline after Kuhn to tackle the rhetorical character of scientific claims.  How do scientists frame their theories?  How do they communicate them to the public?  To what extent do analogies, projection themes and shared language modes influence not only what scientists believe, but what direction science should go?  In addition, how is rhetoric employed in scientific controversies?  For sources on rhetoric of science, see the 11/21/2009 and 03/28/2009 Resources of the Week.

The current hubbub over climate science could calm down, with the consensus stabilizing itself again, or we could witness its collapse.  If the latter, the public image of science as objective and reliable could be severely damaged.  To be true, the IPCC is a somewhat unique case.  It is a centralized body invested with a special role for a single research domain.  Nevertheless, all the major scientific organizations and nations placed unquestioned trust in its reports, because they assumed its methods guaranteed objectivity.  Look at their initial knee-jerk reaction to skeptics.  It was not just the IPCC, but Nature, Science, PNAS, the media, and a host of non-governmental organization that treated the AGW consensus as truth and the IPCC reports as revelation from heaven (the atmosphere, that is).  Skeptics were treated as outsiders and pariahs.  The resemblance to the Darwin consensus is apt.
    Most likely, there will be some bandage reforms to the IPCC peer review process, some individuals will step down, some new regulations will be passed, and journal editors will be a little more careful for awhile.  Then old habits will return.  Remember the Hwang scandal?  Remember the calls for major reforms in peer review? (02/05/2006)  Like last New Year’s resolutions, much of that soul-searching has been forgotten.  Scientists, after all, are only human.
    Those watching this climate scandal perceptively should be alert to the degree to which non-empirical forces shape widely held beliefs in scientific institutions.  The institutions of science must be distinguished from the ideals of science.  As with labor unions, the ideals of protecting worker’s rights often get lost in the politics, corruption and self-interest of the party leadership.  Don’t think for a minute that just because Big Science owns the institutions and journals and political power when they trumpet allegiance to Darwin and hatred of intelligent design, they have an inside track on knowledge.  It’s no coincidence that the same liberal, progressive mentality that dominates Big Labor also dominates Big Science.  The Law of Nature most apropos to climate science, UN science and origins science comes from Political Science: Power Corrupts.