As world leaders start to assemble this week in the capital city of Denmark, discourse on the topic of climate change and the public policy implications thereof have increased. Complicating matters, however, was the revelation in recent weeks that one organization researching anthropogenic global warming was suppressing research running contrary to their claims. Good science depends on an ability to address anomalies in data sets and explain the results of experiments where the conclusion reached ran counter to the hypothesis posed and expectations predicted. This is (or should be) true regardless of where one stands on questions of anthropogenic climate change. Yet, much of the discourse among political elites seems to ignore the troubling occurrences lately revealed. Writing for The Atlantic, Megan McArdle offers an astute analysis of this controversy and its implications for public policy.  She notes:

Corporate groups and conservative interests did put a lot of money into battling any evidence of anthropogenic global warming, for reasons that had very little to with a commitment to solid science.  Having gone more than a few rounds with critics like this, I heartily empathize with the weariness.  But unfortunately, having people you don’t like crawl all over your work looking for errors is, er, science.  When I come across scientists who don’t get that, well, my trust in their work sort of plummets.

These concerns are justified, and while McArdle is correct that the broader consequences for widespread acceptance among scientists of anthropogenic climate change is minimal, the conduct suggested in the leaked emails of scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia merits further inquiry. On this basis, congressional Republicans are justified in calling for hearings on the matter. While Senator Boxer (D-California) is correct that the burglars who stole the sensitive materials from the British university should be prosecuted, an investigation into possible misconduct on the part of intellectuals who should know better must be launched. This is of particular relevance now that the increasingly unpopular Obama administration is seeking to regulate carbon emissions on the assumption that the naturally-occurring gas is a pollutant.

Obstensibly, those gathered in Copenhagen are meeting to set a common, worldwide policy to address climate change accepting the premise that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. However, bad information should not form the basis of what could be sweeping reforms in the way economies presently operate. So far, only the Saudi government has openly called for an investigation into what is being called Climategate by English-language media reports. However, as a state with an economy based on essentially a single industry, oil extraction, Saudi Arabia has reason to prevaricate.

Perhaps “climategate” is the correct name for the conundrum coloring the complicated Copenhagen conversations. If the CRU suppressed contrary data to weaken opponents, then similarities to Watergate are apparent, but not in the way some have alleged. In the scandal which resulted in the only resignation of a U.S. president, Richard Nixon orchestrated a cover-up to hide a burglary carried out against his political opponents he had not authorized. President Nixon, fearing giving his critics a victory, criminally suppressed a lawful inquiry. In the end, of course, the cover-up ruined the political career of a dynamic if paranoid American chief executive. Now, in Britain, scientists could have their reputations ruined by a scandal entirely of their making.

It may well be true that no crime was committed by officials or scientists involved with the Climate Research Unit as was the conclusion reached in the outside investigation of ACORN. However, as was the case with that review, the absence of criminal misconduct does not preclude the possibility that misdeeds were rife. There should be no doubt that the CRU has tarnished the reputation of responsible scientists worldwide.

Ultimately, the international community owes to history a commitment to set policy based on scientific fact and economic reality rather than statist folly. To do otherwise would be to ignore the lessons of the twentieth century and the perversion of science once employed to justify racial segregation and genocide.

Last 5 posts by James Kane

• Politics of Process and Policy - March 17th, 2010
• Obama's Accidental Case Against Reconciliation and the Senate Bill - March 10th, 2010
• On "Real" Diversity and Thinking Critically - March 1st, 2010
• Analyzing the Blair House discourse - February 27th, 2010
• Scott Brown, Barack Obama, and the Politics of Change - January 27th, 2010