A climate conspiracy?

There’s been a lot of internet chatter in the last week about whether a batch of emails written by a few noted climate scientists and hacked from the University of East Anglia reveal an organized effort to falsify data about climate change. (A list of some of the most egregious are listed in an article at Telegraph.co.uk; link here.)

The emails do reveal that these scientists are as petty as the next person, particularly when defending their personal points of view. They remind us that we shouldn’t say things in emails we don’t want the world to read. But perhaps most significantly, they illustrate that scientists can be unfair and biased, which is contrary to the image promoted by our education system. While this latter reality is shocking to some, to others it is evidence of a conspiracy. But likely, it’s not.

Most of those doing the most vehement complaining rely on the internet for their research, where one blogger’s post becomes the next one’s reference. And apparently they don’t know much about scientists, either. The fact is that getting a bunch of academics in general, and scientists in particular, to act in unison is like herding cats.

More likely what these emails reveal are weaknesses inherent in the peer-review process used by professional journals. The most problematic of the emails suggest that some of the researchers are actively pressing journals to not publish contrarian research. It is not clear whether these statements are evidence of a pattern of scientific bullying, or merely academic bravado.

The independence of academic journals is critical. But the peer-review process is a fine line to walk. No journal can publish every paper it gets, and many papers submitted do not contain new information or results that advance understanding or debate. So every journal has peer reviewers, scientists who are supposed to offer unbiased critiques of submitted papers base on the value of the results and the soundness of the science in the research.

The problem is that the best peer reviewers are experts in their field, who hold strong opinions, most likely of the consensus view on a topic. They may not be able to constrain their biases. It is incumbent on journal editors to check those tendencies and allow solid, contrarian research to be published. That’s the way science is supposed to work.

Almost no one reading opposing arguments about any scientific topic has the technical expertise to tell which is based on more sound science. But on the internet everything is widely and rapidly disseminated, and conclusions, whether based on sound scientific research or not, appear equally valid.

Just remember: the peer review process of scientific journals may be imperfect, but the internet has no peer review at all.