A House Stands On Its Own

Imagine that you commission a house to be built for you and your family. All seems to go well during its construction. Every inspector has finally given the nod that all is well, and that the routine problems that crop up in any custom job have been addressed. The contractor is about to hand you the keys and collect your cheque for the final invoice when you learn something disturbing. Many of the trades people who built your house were not model citizens: some were murderers, swindlers of the elderly, child molesters and, yes, even washed-up politicians. What are you going to do?

If the inspectors have done their jobs, the house will stand. It will not suddenly disintegrate or have a lower value because the character of one or more of the workers is called into question. Regardless of character, even if one or a few workers were less than capable at their tasks -- say, attempting to hammer in a nail using a stapler -- presumably this was caught by the contractor or an inspector and the incompetent person was forthwith escorted from the job site. The work was inspected and the house will stand. Believing otherwise will only cause you to suffer monetary or other stress-related difficulties down the road. The house is a house regardless of what you choose to believe.

Now let's move on to a similar situation that is getting a fair amount of media attention: the hacking of the email and files of the CRU (Climate Research Unit) at the University of East Anglia in the UK. Scientists and technicians associated with this group played a role in the IPCC's report on climate change. The leaked material shows that scientists are as human as you and me, complete with instances of braggadocio, rudeness, conflict (sometimes personal) and sloppy thinking. This is unsurprising. I would hope that no one still believes the stereotype of the scientist grimly in a white lab coat humourlessly pronouncing incomprehensible equations and facts to anyone silly enough to engage them in conversation.

"The e-mail exchanges among several prominent American and British climate-change scientists appear to reveal efforts to keep the work of skeptical scientists out of major journals and the possible hoarding and manipulation of data to overstate the case for human-caused climate change."

The above quote from a blogger at the National Post goes a little far in the interpretation of what the material reveals of real scientists doing real work. To claim fraud and malfeasance is not justified, or at least not yet. Like in the house example, it seems that the prospective owner is calling in more inspectors to inspect the house yet again, and the work of the previous inspectors, all because the poor character of some of the workers has come to light.

It is not surprising that hard-nosed skeptics and outright political opponents of the case for climate change would latch onto any opportunity to re-open the science with the objective of reducing its credibility. However, opposition is not equivalent to proof of anything. For now the house still stands. It may be that the foundations of the house are indeed rotten and every inspector on the job site has missed this obvious flaw, although that is improbable. More likely is that some of the building materials were defective or several studs were incorrectly secured. It would be surprising if it were not so, since perfection is unattainable even with the very purest of intentions and diligence of everyone involved. This is as true for science as it is for house construction; that will not cause the house to fall.

The rhetoric is a distraction. I am content to watch while the inspectors go back in and poke around. Possibly they will suggest some remedial work, though even if it is not done I doubt that the building will fall. This is no house of cards, so a flaw here and there will not bring it down. So be prepared to pay up and move in when the latest batch of inspectors complete their review.