Climategate’s roller coaster ride

I’ve been reviewing the leaked emails from the Hadley CRU and they offer a fascinating view of the researchers collective mindset. It smacks of careerist empire building. I’ve seen this before and it’s not pretty.
I’d like to give you and your readers an example of how hide-bound some branches of science can become.

In the 1960′s, archaeologists in western Canada drilled some lake cores in the foothills west of Calgary. They radio-carbon dated some plant material from the cores and came up with dates ranging from 14,000 to 17,000 yearsBP. Those dates supported the theory of an ice free corridor along the foothills of the Rocky Mountains during the maximum extent of the Wisconsinan glaciation (20,000 to 12,000 yearsBP).
Subsequently, many researchers based their life’s work on this data.
In the late 1980′s, it was shown that the plant material used in the original studies was useless because the plants themselves had absorbed older dead carbon from the lakebed as a nutrient source. The effect was artificially old dates and the original studies were discarded.

That should be the end of the story, but it isn’t. Since the 1960′s, hundreds of radio-carbon dates from across Alberta show a definitive gap in the fossil and human history record between 21,000 and 12,000 yearsBP. However, most archaeologists today are still looking for proof of an ice free corridor in western Canada despite the complete lack of evidence to support the theory. In fact, this theory is still taught today to budding archaeologists in universities across the country and around the world.

The fact is some branches of science are highly resistant to discarding old theories. In fact, I admire their tenacity, even if it seems somewhat miguided to me. Perhaps one day they will be able to confirm the theory and I whole heartedly support them in that quest.

The point is this. Today’s archaeologists are trying to find evidence to support the theory of an ice free corridor during the height the Wisconsinan glaciation. They may be clinging to the past, but their work is straight forward and honest. That is how good science is done.

The climate researchers at the Hadley CRU have just as much interest in protecting their life’s work as the archaeologists I’ve just discussed above.

Instead of acknowledging the data as it is, and risk having their theory questioned and hence their life’s work, they took the low road and now we have a scandal.

I’m not sure there is a larger conspiracy at work here, however it does suggest a serious lack of oversight by the IPCC. The CRU’s are exhibiting the kind of inherently incestous approach to science that is a direct result of poor planning in the formation of the CRU’s. Everyone is a “yes” man and dissenting views are not welcome.

That is what bad science looks like.

On a side note, putting Lord Rees in charge of investigating the Hadley CRU is simply a continuation of the same mindset that created the problem in the first place. As I stated in my letter to the Prime Minister and Learder of the Opposition, Canada must demand an INDEPENDENT and EXTERNAL investigation of the CRU’s. Lord Rees views on AGW are well known and that, in and of itself, should disqualify him to lead any investigation.