CRU Hack and Research Process

Climate sceptics claim leaked emails are evidence of collusion among scientists

Hundreds of emails and documents exchanged between world's leading climate scientists stolen by hackers and leaked online

Hundreds of private emails and documents allegedly exchanged between some of the world's leading climate scientists during the past 13 years have been stolen by hackers and leaked online, it emerged today.

The computer files were apparently accessed earlier this week from servers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, a world-renowned centre focused on the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change.

Climate change sceptics who have studied the emails allege they provide "smoking gun" evidence that some of the climatologists colluded in manipulating data to support the widely held view that climate change is real, and is being largely caused by the actions of mankind.

Folks at Real Climate are in the best position to address the specific details. I will only comment on the research process.

Science has built in uncertainty. If there is no risk, there is no science. The hypotheses, experiment, and conclusion may all be "wrong". Science proceeds by continuously refining all the three. Every result should be considered tentative (except may be mathematical proofs). It is routine to say previous work X made wrong assumption Y, we corrected for it and got result Z.

Research into complex systems such as the atmosphere is difficult, time consuming, and often fragile because we have limited knowledge. By their very nature, the results have to be tested and retested constantly. From all that I understand, IPCC has been doing an excellent job verifying as much data as possible and continuously, and in being conservative in its claims. But uncertainty simply cannot be eliminated in such spaces.

It seems to come down to three things - outlook (how you see the world), values (how you make your choices), and systems (how groups react).

Outlook. People are comfortable accepting the products of science such as the electricity, Internet and new drugs but cant accept it when the results are inconvenient. Either you accept science with its imperfections or not.

The world is getting only more complex over time due to advancements of science, and it is overwhelming. In such conditions, it is easier to cope with the world by sticking to some political, social, religious or other dogma instead of struggling with the reality as it is. I catch myself doing that all the time. The challenge is overcome the dogma and see the world as it is.

Values. This came across to me during the financial crisis. The crisis is not about subprime mortagages but rather about subprime culture. It is the attitude that it is fine to sacrifice somebody else's interests if it means enhancing personal interests. Everyone along the chain starting from the homeowner to the international investor had that attitude. The financial system as a result came to the brink of the collapse. I see this all the time in academics as well. There are no saints. The challenge is know where to draw the line as individuals and societies.

Systems. Asking for certainty is asking for the impossible. Reasonable people know that. It is trick. Then why does it happen? I think it is combination of marketing, confusion, fear, and ignorance. Who is doing it and why? It is the outcome of a battle between a large set of players (scientists, politicians, companies, non-profits) for the common man's mindshare. From a systemic point of view, each has their set of institutions, resources, and interests. They are trying to preserve, and enhance their interests. Because the direction will determine the winners and losers - personally and as an organization - the fight is fierce. The timing of the leak is not an accident. The challenge is know at what point the institutions have to be changed to cope with the changed world.

Where does all this leave us? As I said in an ealier post (Climate Pact Postponed. A Crisis of Leadership.), if we dont have a medium to have the global conversations, a realistic framing of the problems, and willingness of people to compromise, social collapse is potential outcome. It is not impossible. Nature does not have any obligation to treat humans differently than other species.

Climate Pact Postponed. A Crisis of Leadership.

APEC leaders: no climate change deal at Copenhagen

But at the annual Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting, Obama has joined the chorus of doubters that say that a global deal on cutting emissions won’t be reached at a key summit next month in Copenhagen. The 19 leaders agreed that the gap between rich and poor nations over what to do about global warming was too big to bridge in the next three weeks. The December meeting in Denmark would be an interim step to any final agreement.

World Leaders Put Off a Climate Change Treaty

in Copenhagen, diplomats will aim to reach a less aggressive — and much less specific — "politically binding" agreement, with the hope that hard numbers and legal obligations to reduce climate change would be added soon, in a two-step approach. "There was an assessment by the leaders that it was unrealistic to expect a full internationally legally binding agreement to be negotiated between now and when Copenhagen starts in 22 days," said Mike Froman, Obama's deputy national security adviser.

A lot of this can be explained using economics (powerful lobbies, coordination challenges) but thats an excuse. The governance systems are so broken that it will take a major shock to the system . At that point we may act constructively or follow societies of the past and collapse .

At the core is the failure of leadership and imagination. You dont need leadership when the problems are obvious. Post-katrina required an immediate response. Thats not a demonstration of leadership. It was too obvious. Leadership is required when there is uncertainty and leaders see problems as they are emerging. They take to the bully pulpit and sell both the problem and solution.

The response to the banking crisis is an indicator of leadership or the lack of it. There is no non-trivial problem for which there are only winners. There will always be winners and losers. The challenge for any leader is to be able to compel the losers to go along with the new order. It is done using whatever means available - buying, helping and punishing.

Leadership doesnt exist in vacuum. Citizens get the leadership they ask for - directly and indirectly.

It is easy to not act. The imperfectness of knowledge can be easily questioned. We can call environment policies standards (which people support) or regulations (which people oppose). No big deal. Too many smart people are in the business of selling ideas - however bad they may be. They package status quo well, use the right language, and visuals to encourage inaction. We see all the time how misaligned incentives can have major consequences.

Societies collapse for a reason. Societies collapse because we cant have the right conversations at the right time - the people are not ready, the medium doesnt exist, or the challenges unclear. We dont know if this moment is perfectly timed, but it definitely sounds like that from all that I have read until now. Yes, we have to act in the presence of imperfect understanding and information.

Where is the leadership? Where are the citizens?