Copyright2012TheJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress

ThisarticlefirstappearedinKennedyInstituteofEthicsJournal,vol.22,no.2,June2012,pages183210
______________Thisistheauthorsedited/extendedversion,asofOct.25,2012______________

Page1of23

Climate Science, Character, and the HardWon Consensus

BrentRanalli
TheCadmusGroup
branalliatcadmusgroupdotcom

ABSTRACT:Whatmakesaconsensusamongscientistscredibleandconvincing?This
paperintroducesthenotionofahardwonconsensusandusesexamplesfromrecent
debatesoverclimatechangesciencetoshowthatthisheuristicstandardforevaluating
thequalityofaconsensusiswidelyshared.Theextenttowhichaconsensusishard
woncanbeunderstoodtodependonthepersonalqualitiesoftheparticipating
experts;thearticledemonstratesthecontinuingutilityofthenormsofmodernscience
introducedbyRobertK.Mertonbyshowingthatindividualsonbothsidesoftheclimate
sciencedebaterelyintuitivelyonMertonianideasinterpretedintermsofcharacter
toframetheirarguments.

Introduction
ThelateMichaelCrichton,sciencefictionwriterandclimatecontrarian,onceremarked:Wheneveryou
heartheconsensusofscientistsagreesonsomethingorother,reachforyourwallet,becauseyoure
beinghad....Inscienceconsensusisirrelevant.Whatisrelevantisreproducibleresults(Crichton
2003).Reproducibilityofresultsandothermethodologicalcriteriaareindeedtheproperbasisfor
scientificjudgments.ButCrichtoniswrongtosaythatconsensusisirrelevant.Consensusamong
scientistsservestocertifyfactsforthelaypublic.
1
Thoseontheperipheryofthescientificenterprise
(i.e.,policymakersandthepublic),whodonthavethetimeortheexpertiseortheequipmenttocheck
resultsforthemselves,necessarilyrelyonthetestimonyofthoseatthecenter.Whenthoseatthe
centeraremoreorlessinagreementonasubject,thatconsensuscarriesconsiderableweight.
Suchaconsensusisnot,howeverasCrichtonmightrejoinaguaranteeofaccuracy.
Thispaperexploresarangeofargumentsaboutthereliabilityandunreliabilityofscientificconsensus.It
doesthisintwoways:first,intheabstract,andsecond,withreferencetoalivepublicdebate,that
surroundingclimatescience.TheexampleofCrichtonsremarkshouldnotlullthereaderintoassuming
thatthepolarizeddebateoverclimatescienceisframedinsimplisticallypolarizedarguments.Consider
Copyright2012TheJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress
ThisarticlefirstappearedinKennedyInstituteofEthicsJournal,vol.22,no.2,June2012,pages183210
______________Thisistheauthorsedited/extendedversion,asofOct.25,2012______________

Page2of23

thatLawrenceSolomon(2010)eloquentlyarguesfortheauthorityofscientificexpertsinadefenseof
climateskepticismandthatJosephRomm(2008)advancesargumentsalmostidenticaltoCrichtonsin
arebuttalofclimateskepticism.Thispaperisastudyofarguments,andoneofitsgoalsisto
demonstratethatevenastheysquareoffinvehementdisagreementoverscientifictheoriesandfacts,
thosewhoparticipateintheclimatedebatesshareacommonstockofflexiblerhetoricalstrategiesand
acommonstockofideasabouttheproperworkingofscience.Specificideasaboutwhatmakesa
consensushardwon,andthereforelikelytobereliable,arewidelysharedonbothsides.
Asweexploreargumentsabouttheauthorityofscientistsandthereliabilityofscientificconsensus,we
makereferencetorelevantrecentacademicliteratureonthephilosophyandsociologyofexpertise.In
addition,wedrawontheolderliteratureonMertonianscientificnorms;anothergoalofthispaperis
toshowthecontinuingrelevanceofthislineofstudydespiteearlyreportsofitsdemise,including
assertionsthatthenormsareobsoleteinanageofpostnormal(complex,urgent,politicized)science
likeclimatechange(Hulme2009,78;onpostnormalscienceseetheworkofSilvioFuntowiczand
JeromeRavetz).Wefindthatthenotionofahardwonconsensusincludesanintuitiverelianceon
Mertoniannorms,understoodintermsofcharacteressentially,judgingthequalityofthescienceby
judgingthequalityofthescientist.
Thepaperconcludeswithsomereflectionsontheroleofcharacterjudgmentsinordinarydiscourseas
wellasinscience.
A Heuristic Approach to Assessing the Reliability of Scientific Consensus
The Possibility of Error
Whatdowemeanwhenwesaythatconsensusamongscientistsinadisciplineisnotaguaranteeof
accuracy?FromaKuhnianperspective,ofcourse,onemightsaythattodaysconsensusmaybeviewed
asfalsebythestandardsofsomefutureera.ButputtingasideKuhnianrelativism(orlimitingthescope
ofourinquirytosocallednormalscience)andpositinganobjectivetruththatscientistscould
discoveroranobjectivefalsehoodtheycouldrefuteitisconceivablethatmembersofthescientific
communitycouldbesogrosslyinerrorthattheyfailtodiscoverthetruth,orthattheymistakenlycertify
thefalsehood.Atleastthreegroundscouldbeofferedtoexplainsuchgrosscommunalerror:
1.Bias.Individualswithlifehistoriesareinevitablysubjecttobiases,andthesemaycloudjudgment.
Conceivably,theremaybebiasesthatwouldapplytoawholeclassofexperts,eitherbyvirtueof
theirexpertstatus(e.g.,abiasabouttherelativeimportanceoftheirspecialtyvisvisother
specialties)orbyvirtueofothersharedtraits(e.g.,politicalorideologicalleanings).
2.Interest.Individualswithastakeintheoutcomeofadebate,eithermaterial(e.g.,allegianceto
sponsors,expectationoffinancialrewards)orpersonal(emotionalinvestmentinafavored
hypothesis)maydeludethemselveswithspuriousarguments(infactaformofbias),orsuppress
inconvenientargumentsorconclusions,orevenattempttodeceivewithspuriousargumentsand
Copyright2012TheJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress
ThisarticlefirstappearedinKennedyInstituteofEthicsJournal,vol.22,no.2,June2012,pages183210
______________Thisistheauthorsedited/extendedversion,asofOct.25,2012______________

Page3of23

evidence.Conceivably,manyorallmembersofanexpertcommunitycouldsharecommonor
overlappinginterests.
3.Groupthink.Individualsmayfeelpressuretoagreewithpeerstoreduceinterpersonalconflict,
pressureeitherselfappliedorsociallyapplied.Insuchaposition,anindividualmightmoderateor
mediatehisorherviewsinordertocomeintoaccordwithothers.Or,facedwithawidelyaccepted
plausibletheory,theindividualmightacceptitatfacevalueandfailtoexplorealternativetheories.
Thesethreepossibleexplanationsforerroneousexpertconsensusrangefromthebanalandmundane
(e.g.,everypersonissubjecttomildbiasesandhasapersonalinterestinhisorherwork)tothe
egregious.Intheliteratureonexpertise,AlvinGoldman(2006,pp.2431)includesconsiderationof
interest,bias,andgroupthink(conditionalindependence)inageneraltheoreticaldiscussionofthe
reliabilityofexperts;theirapplicabilityunderconditionsofexpertconsensuscanbetakenasasortof
limitingcaseforGoldmansobservations.HeatherDouglas(2008,pp.1112)alsoprovidesauseful
discussionofbiasinexpertjudgment.
Thescientificenterprisehassomebuiltinpracticesthatreduceorminimizethesepossiblesourcesof
error.Peerreview,forexample,ismeanttosmoothoutindividualbiases.Disclosureoffinancial
interestsservestoalertreaderstopossiblebiasesresultingfromsuchinterest.Butbeneaththelevelof
institutionalpractices,thereareotherfactorsthatmightcounteractsuchsourcesoferror.Inparticular,
therearenormsandvaluesthat,accordingtoaschoolofthoughtinitiatedbysociologistRobertK.
Mertoninthemidtwentiethcentury,underpinthemodernscientificenterprise.
The Mertonian Tradition
Mertonintroducedthenormsina1942essayentitledTheNormativeStructureofScience(1973
[1942]).
2
OthersocialscientistswhomadeuseofandbuiltonMertonsnormativeframeworkinthe
decadesthatfollowed(includingBernardBarber[1952],WarrenHagstrom[1965],andNormanW.
Storer[1966])variedthelistsomewhat,butcanonicallytherearefournorms:universalism,
communalism(communisminMertonsoriginalformulation),disinterestedness,andorganized
skepticism.Universalismrequiresthatcontributionstoscientificdiscoursebejudgedontheirmerit,
withoutregardforthecontributorsnationality,race,religion,sex,class,andsoforth.Communalism
makesimperativethefreeandopencommunicationofmethodsandresults.Disinterestednessrequires
practitionerstodisclaimorforgoanyegoisticormaterialstakeintheoutcomeoftheirresearch.
Organizedskepticism(sometimessimplycalledskepticism)referstotherightanddutyofthescientist
(inMertonsformulation,thescientificcommunityatlarge)toquestionanyandalldogma.
Naturally,thenormsrepresentanidealthatisnotattainedinpractice.Nevertheless,accordingto
Mertonsschoolofthought,thenormsareinstitutionalizedinwaysthatinfluencescientistsbehavior,
makingscientificcommunitiesparticularlywellsuitedtothecollaborativeproductionandcertification
ofreliableknowledge.
Copyright2012TheJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress
ThisarticlefirstappearedinKennedyInstituteofEthicsJournal,vol.22,no.2,June2012,pages183210
______________Thisistheauthorsedited/extendedversion,asofOct.25,2012______________

Page4of23

Inthe1970s,scholarlyinterestinthenormswentintoeclipse.Practitionersoftheemergingsociologyof
scientificknowledge(SSK)traditionemphaticallyrejectedtheMertonianlegacy,perceivingitasnaiveor
paternalisticorasdenyingthevalidityofthesortofinquiriestheywishedtopursue(thoughsomefrom
theSSKtraditionconsideredtheconflicttohavebeenlargelyunnecessaryatthetime[Collins1982]and
overpublicizedinretrospect[Shapin1995,p.297]).Amongtraditionalsociologistsofscience,inthe
meantime,interestshiftedawayfromnormsandtowardotheraspectsofMertonsresearchprogram,
aspartofageneralturnawayfromhumanisticinquiryandtowardquantitativeresearchmethods(Ben
David1991).
3

TodaythereisrenewedinterestintheMertoniannormsinseveraldisciplines.Thefieldof
scientometrics,whichhasalwaysacknowledgedadebttoMerton,hasstartedtoreclaimthelanguage
ofnorms(seethe2004specialissueofScientometrics).Thoseinterestedinprofessionalethicsinscience
havefoundthenormsausefulframeworkforempiricalstudy(Anderson,Martinson,anddeVries2007;
Antes,Brown,Murphy,etal.2007)andforprescriptiveprograms(Kalleberg2009;MeyerandSande
2010).HistorianssuchasTobyHuff(2003,2007)andmyselfhavemadepreliminaryforaysintothe
investigationofthehistoricaloriginanddevelopmentofthemodernscientificethos.Perhapsmorethan
anyoneelse,sciencescholarJohnZimanhasprovidedcontinuityinthisstory,havingmadeuseofthe
Mertonianframeworkinpublishedwritingsfromthe1960sthroughtheearlyyearsofthetwentyfirst
century;hismagisterialRealScience(Ziman2000)offersausefulmodernrestatementofthenorms.
Muchinkhasbeenspilledabouttheontologyofthenorms.Idonotattemptheretodefendthe
moderatelystrongclaim(theclassicalone)thatthenormsarerealandexertinfluencesthathelpmake
scienceproductiveandaccurate,stilllesstheverystrongclaim(aparodyoftheclassicalviewthathas
sometimesservedasastrawman)thatthenormssomehowguaranteetheintegrityofscientistsandthe
accuracyofscientificpronouncements.Still,IbelievetheweakclaimIupholdinthisessaythat
Mertonsnormsapproximatehowscientistsandlaymenalikethinkabouthowscienceissupposedto
worktakesusmuchofthewaytoMertonsmoderatelystrongthesisbysupportingtheideathatthe
normsaresharedandhavemoralforce,thatis,thattheyareindeedreal.
Thenormscanbeviewedfromseveralangles.Theycanbeinterpretedasprescriptionsortheycanbe
vieweddescriptivelyasobjectsofstudy.Whenvieweddescriptively,theycouldbelocatedin
institutionalarrangementsandpracticesthatinfluenceandconstrainscientists,likeblindpeerreview
anddisclosureoffinancialinterest,ortheycouldbesoughtinthecharacterofscientistswhohave
internalizedthoseinstitutionalnormsorboth.Hereweareconcernedwithcharacter,butwe
approachthetopicobliquely.Ourobjectofstudyisnottheactualmoralcharacterofscientistsbutthe
prescriptiveidealofscientistsmoralcharacterinthepopularmind.Thispopularprescriptive
expectationcouldperhapsitselfbeseenasoneinstitutionalfactorthatinfluencestheconstitution
andbehaviorofthescientificcommunityintheclassicalMertonianview.
Ofthefournorms,twoinparticulardisinterestednessandskepticismareofprimaryinterestinthis
paper,fortheirconnectiontotheideaofthehardwonconsensus
Copyright2012TheJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress
ThisarticlefirstappearedinKennedyInstituteofEthicsJournal,vol.22,no.2,June2012,pages183210
______________Thisistheauthorsedited/extendedversion,asofOct.25,2012______________

Page5of23

The HardWon Consensus

Wemaydefineahardwonconsensusasonethatemergesonlyaftervigorousdebateandathorough
examinationoftherangeofalternativeexplanations.Itisoneinwhichcentrifugaltendenciesare
strong,andtheexpertsaredrawnintoagreementonlyreluctantlyandaftercarefulconsideration.
Again,thefactthataconsensusishardwonisnotaguaranteethatitiscorrect.Butitprovidessome
assurancethatthescientificcommunityhasdoneitsduediligence.
Thenextquestionis:howdoesonerecognizethataconsensusishardwonandnotmerelyanartifactof
groupthink,orinterest,orbias?Onestrategyistoevaluatethequalityofthedialogueamongexperts,to
lookforevidencethatvigorousdebatetookplaceandthatmultiplehypotheseswereentertainedbefore
consensuswasachieved.Thiscouldbedonebyalayperson,butonlyatcostandwithdifficulty.
4
It
wouldrequirethelaypersontomonitortheemergingtechnicalliteratureand/orwadethrough
extensivearchives.Andtherearenoclearcriteriafordecidingwhetheradebatehasbeenrobust
enough,whetherthehypothesesdebatedhavebeenimaginativeenough.
Anotherstrategyistoevaluatenotthequalityofthedialoguebutthequalityoftheparticipants.Weare
adeptatevaluatingpeople(orsowethinkattheveryleastweareaccustomedtoitmoreonthis
below),anditdoesnottakelongtoformanopinionofapersonscharacter,whichmakesthisafeasible
shorthandstrategy,morefeasiblethanmonitoringandevaluatingthetechnicaldiscussions.Itmakesthe
problemofevaluatingexpertconsensustractable:judgetheexperts,andyouhaveawaytodraw
heuristicconclusionsabouttheconfidencethatshouldbeplacedintheirpronouncements.
Philosophersmaycringeatthelackofrigorinsuchachainofreasoning,andonemaypointinparticular
toourunreliabilityinjudgingcharacter.Idonotcontestthelackofrigor,butIthinkweshouldentertain
thislineofreasoningfortworeasons.First,itiswelldocumentedthatscientistsevaluateeachother
basedonpersonalqualities,
5
andhistoryofsciencescholarshipshowsthatsincetheearliestdaysofthe
modernerascientistshavebeenatpainstodeveloppersonaeforthebenefitofboththepublicand
theirfellowpractitionerstodemonstratethattheypossesstraitsconsideredimportantornecessary
forparticipationorexcellenceintheprofession(Shapin1994;seealsoShapin2008).Second,lackof
formalrigornotwithstanding,Iwishtoshowthatthisishowpeopleactuallythinkaboutissuesof
controversyandconsensus.Thesearetermsinwhichdebatesaboutthereliabilityofconsensusare
playedout,debatesthatincludebothscientistsandlaypersons,bothdefendersandcriticsofagiven
scientificorthodoxy.
Whatarethecriteriaforevaluatingpersons?HereweinvoketwooftheMertoniannorms.First,we
expectscientiststoberadicallyindividualisticandskeptical.Thistraitmotivatesthemtoturnacritical
eyeoneachothersworkandcollectivelytoleavenostoneunturnedwhenthinkingabouthypotheses,
counterarguments,andperspectivesonaproblem.Skepticismmaycounteractgroupthink.Second,we
alsoexpectscientiststobeprofessionallyhumbleanddisinterested:toturntheirskepticisminwardand
examinetheirbiases,tosetasideegoandmaterialinterests,andgenerallytostriveforobjectivityand
bewillingtofollowtheevidencewhereveritleads.Thisservestwodistinctpurposesthatarerelevantto
Copyright2012TheJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress
ThisarticlefirstappearedinKennedyInstituteofEthicsJournal,vol.22,no.2,June2012,pages183210
______________Thisistheauthorsedited/extendedversion,asofOct.25,2012______________

Page6of23

ourdiscussion.Oneisthatithelpsmakepossibleconsensusamongskeptics.Thatis,itreduces
individualattachmenttofirstimpressionsandpethypotheses,enablingcollectivescientificopinionto
shiftandcoalescearoundthebesthypothesesasevidenceaccumulates.Theotheristhatitalso
counteracts,atleasttoanextent,errorsofinterestandbias,helpingtopreventscientistsfrommaking
avoidableerrorsofjudgment.
Inotherwords,amongthenormsthatgovernourexpectationsforthebehaviorandcharacterof
scientists,thenormsofskepticismanddisinterestednesscanhelptocounteractgroupthink,interest,
andbiasandfacilitatetheemergenceofconsensusthatbecauseitisbornofarigorousandfrank
examinationofproblems,peers,andselfmaybeconsideredhardwon.
Beforemovingontotheempiricalportionofthisstudy,Iwishtopointoutthatthenormshavedeep
historicalroots.MertongaveillustrativeexamplesgoingbackallthewaytotheearlyyearsoftheRoyal
SocietyofLondon.Myownhistoricalresearch(publicationpending)identifiestheminthewritingsof
philosophicalreformersagenerationearlier.Inthetheologicallychargedatmosphereofthe
seventeenthcentury,thenormswerearticulatedbysomeusingthelanguageofChristianvirtue.The
virtueofhumility,itwasthought,wouldpredisposenaturalphilosopherstocriticallyexaminetheirown
beliefsandassumptions.(Inthemodernliterature[e.g.,Ziman(2000)],humilityisstillsometimes
usedasasynonymfordisinterestedness.)Thevirtueofindividualconsciencewouldpredisposenatural
philosopherstoapplytheirownprivatejudgmenttoscientificquestionsratherthanaligningthemselves
withoneoranotherpartyinacontroversy.Thehistoricalrootsofthenormsaresignificantbecausethe
old,commonvocabularyofvirtueismoreaccessibleeventodaythanthetechnicaljargonusedby
sociologists.Inpublicdebateaboutscientificcontroversiesinthetwentyfirstcentury,invocationsof
skepticismanddisinterestednessmayappearalongsidemorecolloquialexpressionslikeindependence
andhumilityandtheiroppositesinthevocabularyofvirtue,namely,partisanshipandarrogance.
A Survey of the Climate Science Debate
Weturnnowtoacontemporaryissue,thepubliccontroversyoverclimatescience,tosurveyarguments
thataremadeaboutthecredibilityofscientificconsensusbyscientiststhemselves,membersofthe
public,andcommentators.
Thisbriefsurveyexaminesrepresentativeargumentsmadebothindefenseoftheconsensusandin
oppositiontoit.Thesurveydoesnottouchonfirstorderargumentsaboutclimatescience,thatis,
argumentsaboutthemeritsofparticularscientificdataandmodelsandhypotheses.Italsodoesnot
dwellonargumentsaboutwhetherconsensushasbeenachieved.Wetakeasastartingpointasdo
manyofthosewhoseopinionsarecitedhere,onbothsidesofthedebatethatthereisgeneral
agreementamongscientistsinclimaterelateddisciplinesthattheweightofevidenceindicatesthat
humanactivityisalteringtheclimate.Theconsensusisnotunanimous,butitisaneffectiveconsensus,
solidenoughtoinformpolicy(whichiswhatevidentlyrousestoactivismmanyofthoseopposedtoit).
6

Copyright2012TheJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress
ThisarticlefirstappearedinKennedyInstituteofEthicsJournal,vol.22,no.2,June2012,pages183210
______________Thisistheauthorsedited/extendedversion,asofOct.25,2012______________

Page7of23

Mostoftheargumentsmadecanbelocatedononeofseveralplanesintroducedabove:theyinvolve
theroleandprivilegesofexpertise,sourcesoferrorinexpertjudgments,andthecharacterofscientific
experts.Therhetoricalspaceinwhichthedebatetakesplacecanbediagrammedasfollows.

SchemaofArgumentsaboutConsensusinClimateScience
A.Indefenseofconsensus B.Inoppositiontoconsensus
1.Argumentsabout
theroleandprivileges
ofexpertise
Invocationofclimate
scientistsexpertauthority
Invocationoftheauthority
ofexpertsinneighboring
disciplines
Deconstructionofthe
authorityofexperts
2.Argumentsabout
sourcesoferrorin
expertjudgments
(bias,interest,
groupthink)
Explanationsforthefailureof
therecalcitrantminorityof
scientiststoembracethe
consensusview
Explanationsofthe
consensusasanartifact
3.Argumentsabout
thecharacterof
experts
Defenseofthecharacterof
mainstreamscientists
Attacksonthecharacterofthe
recalcitrantminorityof
scientists
Attacksonthecharacterof
mainstreamscientists
Defenseofthecharacterof
therecalcitrantminorityof
scientists

Nowweproceedtosurveytheargumentsthatpopulatethisschema,goingroughlyclockwisefromthe
lowerleft.Someoftheargumentscrossboundaries,especiallytheboundarybetweenrow(2)androw
(3).Itturnsoutthatitisverydifficulttotalkaboutbias,interest,orgroupthinkwithouttalkingabout
characterflawsaswell.
Beforewebegin,wemustaddressaquestionofterminologythatalreadyinvitescontroversy,namely
theverybasicquestionofwhoisaskeptic.Thatlabelisconventionallyusedtodescribethosewho
opposetheconsensusview.Suchindividuals,whogenerallybristleatthelabeldenier,claimthatthe
professionalscientificcommunityisbeinginadequatelyskepticalandsotheconsensusthathasbeen
achievedissuspect.Mainstreamscientists,fortheirpart,insistthatbeingskepticalispartoftheirjob
descriptionandthatsocalledskepticsareactuallydogmaticorpartisanorjustarentknowledgeable
enoughtopassjudgmentonthescience.Forconvenience,weretainconventionalterminologyandrefer
tothosewhoopposetheconsensusviewasskeptics.
Copyright2012TheJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress
ThisarticlefirstappearedinKennedyInstituteofEthicsJournal,vol.22,no.2,June2012,pages183210
______________Thisistheauthorsedited/extendedversion,asofOct.25,2012______________

Page8of23

A Survey of the Arguments

Westartwithargumentsmadebydefendersoftheconsensusview,seekingtoexplainwhysome
credentialedscientistsrejectit(2Aand3A).NaomiOreskes(2011)addressestherecalcitranceofsome
credentialedexpertsbydistinguishingthemaverickfromthemule.Themaverickisascientistwho
thinksoutsidetheboxwhenaresearchquestionisnewandthereisnoconsensus.Sometimesthe
maverickturnsouttobeattheleadingedgeofthecommunitysthinkingasevidenceaccumulates,and
sometimesthemaverickisleftbehind.Themuleissomeonewhoclingstoafavoritehypothesisthatis
contradictedbytheweightofevidenceandrefusestoacknowledgethatheorshehasbeenleftbehind.
Thisstubbornunwillingnesstoabandonafavoredhypothesisispresentedasacharacterflaw:excessive
pridethatmakesanindividualsopinionsrigidandblocksconsensusformation.Nothesitatingtoname
names,OreskessuggeststhatMITsclimatecontrarianRichardLindzenbelongsinthiscategory.
Beingamuleisperhapsnotthegravestofsins,sinceconsensusneednotbeunanimoustobeeffective.
Arguablythereisalwaysroominscienceforahandfulofmaverickswhoarewillingtoplacereallylong
bets.Moreseriousistheaccusationofpartisanshipreferringtoscientistswhoareinthepayof
interestedpartieslikethefossilfuellobbyorwhootherwise(e.g.,forideologicalreasons)toeaparty
line.InMerchantsofDoubt,OreskesandcoauthorErikConwaydocumentthecasesofseveral
individualswhoappeartohavebeencooptedinthiswayintheclimatesciencedebates.Someofthose
individuals,theauthorsreport,likephysicistsFrederickSeitzandS.FredSinger,havealonghistoryof
actingasscientificgadfly,takingideologicallymotivatedandinsomecasesfinanciallyrewarded
positionsoncontroversialissuesfromsecondhandsmoketoozonedepletiontoacidrainand,ineach
case,maintainingthecontrarianpositionevenasspecialistcolleaguesintherelevantdisciplinesreach
aneffectiveconsensus(OreskesandConway2010).A2008reviewofenvironmentalskepticswritings
andnetworksandfundingconcludedthatenvironmentalskepticsarenot,astheyportraythemselves,
independentandobjectiveanalysts.Rather,theyarepredominantlyagentsofconservativethinktanks,
andtheirsuccessinpromotingskepticismaboutenvironmentalproblemsstemsfromtheiraffiliation
withthesepoliticallypowerfulinstitutions(Jacques,Dunlap,andFreeman2008,p.351).
Inthemediawarsoverclimatescience,theargumentfromauthority(1A)isfrequentlyheard:sinceso
manyexpertsagreethathumanactivityislikelychangingtheclimate,itisreasonableforthepublicto
acceptthatpropositionandprudentforpolicymakerstoactonit.Theargumentfromauthoritycanbe
reinforcedquantitatively.Onestudy(Oreskes2004)foundthatthat75percentofrefereedjournal
articlesonglobalclimatechangearguedfororassumedthathumansareinfluencingtheclimateand
nonearguedagainstitorindicateddoubt.(Theneutral25percentwerearticlesonmethodsor
paleoclimate.)Anotherstudy(Anderegg,Prall,Harold,etal.2010)foundthat9798%oftheclimate
researchersmostactivelypublishinginthefieldareinagreementaboutanthropogenicclimatechange
(ACC)andthattherelativeclimateexpertiseandscientificprominenceoftheresearchersunconvinced
ofACCaresubstantiallybelowthatoftheconvincedresearchers.
Argumentsabouttheauthorityofexpertsarealsoheardintheheatofdebate:forexample,inresponse
toskepticswhowouldsecondguesspaleoclimatologistsselectionandinterpretationoftreeringdata.
7

Copyright2012TheJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress
ThisarticlefirstappearedinKennedyInstituteofEthicsJournal,vol.22,no.2,June2012,pages183210
______________Thisistheauthorsedited/extendedversion,asofOct.25,2012______________

Page9of23

Onescientistasks:Whyshould[Keith]Briffaoneoftheworldleadersinthisfieldhavetoexplain
himselftopeoplewhoarenotevenspecialistsinthisarea,whoareinfactamateurswhohaveset
themselvesupasjudgesofprofessionalactivity?(qtd.inPearce2010,p.57).Allowingamateurs,even
thosewhohaveimmersedthemselvesintheprimaryliterature,topassjudgmentontheworkof
expertswouldseemtoviolatewhatsociologistsofexpertiseHarryCollinsandRobertEvans(2007,pp.
6063)calldownwarddiscrimination(theideathatthosewithgreaterexpertiseinatopiccanbe
trustedtoevaluatestatementsmadebythosewithlessexpertiseandnotviceversa)andindeedto
underminetheverynotionofexpertiseitself.
Thatclimatescientistsfearofdatabeingmishandledandmisinterpretedbyamateursissincerelyheld
andnotmerepublicposturingorobfuscationcanbeseenintheprivateemailsleakedafterthe
Climategatehack.Somescientistswereclearlyexasperatedbywhattheyperceivedaselementary
mistakes,misconceptions,andmisinterpretationsofpublishedresultsmadebytheirhostilecritics,and
bytheirinterrogatorsapparentfailuretograspeventhecontentoftheirownformaldatarequests
(e.g.,Climategateemails1233245601.txtand1229468467.txt).
8

Howeversincerelyheld,suchargumentsfromauthorityareripetobedeconstructed(2a).Amongthe
amateurskepticalcommunitythereisaheartyappetitetomasterthescienceofclimatechange,atleast
inthespiritofawhodunit.Hencetheincessantdemandsthathavebeenmadebyamateurskepticsfor
thedataunderpinningpublishedstudiesandevenforcomputercodeandintermediatecalculations.
Thosewhowouldattributethisslavishintenttoexactlyreproducetheworkoftheprofessionalstolack
ofimaginationoranalyticalability(e.g.,Climategateemail1228258714.txt)missthepoint.Theamateur
criticsarenotprimarilyinterestedinreplicatingresultsviaindependentanalysis,asascientificpeer
wouldbe.Rather,theywishtoaudittheresults,tolookforflaws,evidenceofwrongdoingor
incompetence.
Thepresumptionbehindanauditisthatexpertiseholdsnomystique:expertsmayapplyseasoned
judgment,buteveryinstanceofsuchjudgmentcanbeisolatedandinterrogatedandshouldbe
evaluatedbycanonsofcommonsenseaccessibletoanyone.Argumentsforsuchflatteningof
expertisehavenotbeenneglectedinthephilosophyofscienceliterature.Douglas(2007)suggeststhat
JuliaAnnass(2006)accountoftheessentialunityandcommunicabilityofpracticalexpertisecanbe
appliedtoscientificexpertise.
9

MichaelPolanyis(1958,pp.1012)observationsabouttheacquisitionoftacitknowledgearealso
appositehere.Polanyioffersthe(autobiographical)exampleofthemedicalstudentwhoseclassroom
apprenticeshiptothestudyofpulmonaryXraysproducesacognitivetransformation,almosta
transfiguration.Afterthegropingperiodofapprenticeship,whatoncewerefaintspiderylinesonthe
darkbackgroundbecameafullyinterpretablepictureoflungs,inenoughdetailtomakediagnoses.
Masteringthisinterpretivescientifictechniqueisakintomasteringacraft.InCollinss(2010)
terminology,thissortofinterpretivetechniquemaybedifficulttoconveybecauseitinvolvesostensive
knowledge(knowledgethatcanonlybeconveyedbypointing),unrecognizedknowledge(knowledge
Copyright2012TheJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress
ThisarticlefirstappearedinKennedyInstituteofEthicsJournal,vol.22,no.2,June2012,pages183210
______________Thisistheauthorsedited/extendedversion,asofOct.25,2012______________

Page10of23

thattheteacherisnotconsciouslyawareof),andevensomatictacitknowledge(unconscious
knowledgeorskillthatdevelopsinphysicalinteractionwithobjects).
Interpretationoftreeringdataisadisciplinethathasmanyofthesamecraftlikeelements.IfPolanyis
viewsofcraftlikeexpertisearecorrect,thennomatterhowdiligentlyatreeringexpertseekstoexplain
thebasisofherjudgments,shewillnevercompletelysucceedandthusmaynevercompletelysatisfyher
critics.Andnomatterhowfiercelycriticsinterrogatefromadistance,theywillnotreallygetthehangof
interpretingtreeringdatauntiltheyenrollinagraduateprogramandlearnthecraftdirectly.
Thislineofreasoning(whichIhavenotseenfullyarticulatedintheclimatedebatebutissuggestedby
commentsliketheonlyonesqualifiedtointerprettheactualtechnicalsciencearetheprofessional
scientiststhemselves[SurvivalistBoards2011])mightseemtomystifyexpertiseinawaythatprovides
expertscovertobehavearbitrarily,aswellastoundermineanypossibilityofrationaldialogue.This
neednotbeso.Defendersofexpertiseshouldreadilyconcedethatalthoughexpertisemightneverbe
fullyarticulable,neverthelessscientistsareboundtomaketheirbesteffortstolaybareandarticulate
thebasesoftheirjudgments.Andclimateskepticscouldarguethatmerelybeingcraftlikedoesnot
makeaninterpretivetraditionvalid.ThemedicalstudentwhostudiespulmonaryXrayswillwanttobe
sureheisstudyingwithamasterwhohasarecordofsuccessfuldiagnoses.Sincedendroclimatologyisa
relativelyyoungfield,andprimarilyahistoricalandobservationaldiscipline(inwhichcasecontrol
verificationofhypothesescannoteasilybeperformed),itmightbepossibletoarguethatcurrent
interpretivecanonsshouldnotyetbeconsideredfullyvalidated.
Inadditiontodeconstructingexpertise,anothertactictakenbyamateurskepticsistoappealtothe
authorityofexpertsinaneighboringdiscipline(1B):mostimportantly,statistics.Withabackgroundin
mathematics,amateurskepticStevenMcIntyre,aretiredmineralsconsultant,hasmadesome
substantivecriticismsofthestatisticalworkofMichaelMannandotherpaleoclimatologists.Theclimate
expertsarevulnerableinthisareasince(aswasnotedbyoneoftheindependentreviewpanelsthat
wasassembledaftertheClimategateemailscandal[Oxburgh,Davies,Emanuel,etal.2010,p.3])the
communityofprofessionalpaleoclimatologistshastendedtorelyonitsownstatisticaltrainingrather
thancollaboratingwithprofessionalstatisticians.Ifweenvisionladdersofexpertise,boththe
professionalclimatologistsandskepticslikeMcIntyrestandhighontheladderofstatisticalexpertisebut
notatthetop,sowhenofficialreviewsandinvestigationshavebeenmade(e.g.,theWegmanreport,
theNationalResearchCouncil[NRC]report,theMuirRussellreview,theLordOxburghpanel)ithas
alwaysbeennecessarytobringinprofessionalstatisticianstoadjudicatebyexercisingdownward
discrimination.
10
Thestatisticianshavenotalwaysupheldthejudgmentsmadebytheclimatescientists.
The2006NRCandWegmanreports,forexample,thoughtheydifferedintheirmainconclusions,both
foundfaultwiththestatisticalworkbehindthefamousearlyhockeystickchartofhistorical
temperaturesproducedbyMannandcolleagues;theIntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange
subsequentlystoppedusingthechart.
Copyright2012TheJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress
ThisarticlefirstappearedinKennedyInstituteofEthicsJournal,vol.22,no.2,June2012,pages183210
______________Thisistheauthorsedited/extendedversion,asofOct.25,2012______________

Page11of23

Thissuggestsamoregeneralpoint,whichisthatclimatescienceissocomplexandmultidisciplinarythat
nooneindividualcanpossiblypossesstheexpertisetostandinanepistemicallyprivilegedpositionover
thewholedomain.Atmosphericchemistshavetotakeontrust,muchaseducatedlaypersonsdo,that
thesolarphysicistsknowwhattheyaretalkingaboutandthataconsensusofoceanographersisa
meaningful,hardwonconsensus.ForskepticalauthorAndrewMontford(2010a,pp.22223),who
observesthatgeochemistsandglacierscientistswhoarefullyconvincedoftheoverallargumentfor
anthropogenicglobalwarmingneverthelessdownplaytheadequacyofdataintheirowndisciplines,
suchconsiderationsonlymagnifyaskepticsdoubts.Solomon(2010,p.46)similarlyarguesthat
scientistswhohavereservationsabouttheevidenceintheirownareaofexpertisemayhavefewer
reservationsaboutthebigpicture.Recognizingthisphenomenonasageneralfeatureofexpert
communities,Collins(1992,p.145)explainsitwiththequipthatdistancelendsenchantment.Collins
andEvanselaborate:Corescientistsarecontinuallyexposed,incaseofdispute,tothecounter
argumentsoftheirfellowsand,asaresult,areslowtoreachcompletecertaintyaboutanyconclusion.
Ingeneral,itisthoseinthenextringout...thenonspecialistsinthescientificcommunitywho,in
theshortterm,reachthegreatestcertaintyaboutmattersscientific(2002,p.246;cf.CollinsandEvans
2007,pp.2021).
Movingon:skepticsalsoattacktheconsensusviewbyadvancingargumentsaboutthecharacter,
interests,andbiasesofmainstreamscientists(2Band3B).Onetacticisthemirrorimageofthe
argumentaboutcooptationbythefossilfuellobby.Itissaid,forexample,thatclimatescientistsare
onlyinitforthemoney,orotherwisehaveimpuremotives,andarethusnottrulydisinterested.One
representativeskepticalcommentator,forexample,referstoanallegedcooptingofclimatescienceby
politics,ambition,greed,andwhatseemstobeahereditaryhumanneedforarighteouscause(Happer
2011).Morespecificallyasregardsmoney,thereisspeculationthatscientiststrimtheirresearch
programs(e.g.,Haddad2011)orevenfalsifydata(e.g.,remarksmadebyTexasgovernorandU.S.
presidentialhopefulRickPerry[Batheja2011]),inordertocontinuetoreceivefunding.
11

Othersappealtothemotivesandcharacterofmainstreamclimatescientistsinordertodefendthe
consensusview(2Aand3A),portrayingtheseindividualsinalightthatminimizestheplausibilityof
error.Itisarguedthatclimatescientistsaremenandwomenofintegrity.Forexample,onemaypointto
theresultsoftheofficialinvestigationslaunchedinthewakeoftheClimategatehack.These
investigationsfoundseveralpointstocriticizebutnoevidenceoffraudandnoreasontodoubtthe
rigourandhonestyoftheclimatescientists(Russell,Boulton,Clarke,etal.2010,p.11).
12
Itisargued
thatifclimatescientiststakethepublicspotlight,itisonlyreluctantlyandonaccountoftheurgencyof
theirfindings;bytemperamentandtrainingtheyaremorecomfortableintheseclusionofthelabthan
intheglareofthepubliceye(OreskesandConway2010,pp.26265hence,theseauthorsargue,the
needforadvocatessuchasthemselves).Furthermore,whendiscussingtheimplicationsoftheir
researchtheytendmoretowardcautionthansensationalism(Fischer2011),asMontfordtooobserves.
Regardingfinancialrewards,itisfrequentlypointedoutthatclimatescientistsdonotbecomewealthy
anddonotexpectto.
13
Onthequestionoffunding:thosewithfirsthandknowledgeofthefunding
Copyright2012TheJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress
ThisarticlefirstappearedinKennedyInstituteofEthicsJournal,vol.22,no.2,June2012,pages183210
______________Thisistheauthorsedited/extendedversion,asofOct.25,2012______________

Page12of23

processemphasizethatnoonegetsfundedtodemonstrateaspecificresult.Peoplegetfundedto
investigatequestions(Schmidt2011).Regardinganyallegedtimidityofscientiststopublishresultsthat
challengeconventionalwisdom,arepresentativeresponseisMichaelMcElroyandDanielSchrags
statementinareviewofCrichtonsStateofFear:Crichton,apparently,hastheviewthatthereisaherd
instinctinscience.Thiscouldnotbefurtherfromthetruth.Scientificreputationsaremadenotby
reachingconclusionsdrawnbyothersearlier,butratherbychallengingthestatusquo.Competitive
juicesfuelprogress(2005,p.26).
ClimatologistJudithCurryhasofferedasetofobservationsonthesubjectofcharacterandgroupthink
thatneedstostandaloneinthissurveyfortworeasons.First,itisacritiqueofthemainstreamclimate
community(2B)thatcomesfromamainstreamscientistratherthanaskeptic.Second,althoughitis
primarilydirectedatmainstreamcommunity,itappliesequallywelltotheskepticalcommunity(2A).
14
I
refertoCurrysobservationsonthesubjectoftribalisminscience(2009).Curryarguesthatunder
pressurefromideologicallymotivatedattacks,scientiststendtocirclethewagonsandpointtheguns
outward,makingthemselveslesslikelytogivecriticismfromtheoutsideafairhearingandlesslikelyto
toleratedissentamongthemselves.Curryherselfenjoyedtheprotectionandsolidarityofatribefor
approximatelyayearwhilesheandhercolleaguesweresubjectedtoasmearcampaignonaccountof
researchonclimateandhurricanes,andshecametorecognizeitsdisadvantagesanddysfunctionsas
wellasitsadvantagesandoccasionalnecessity.Shesuggeststhatthescientistscaughtupinthe
Climategateaffairweresubjecttotribalthinkingoveranextendedperiodandthatthisaffectedtheir
judgmentandtheirabilitytobeobjectiveincertainmatters.Arguably,segmentsoftheskeptical
communitythatareactivelystrivingforobjectivityandtruth(SteveMcIntyreandsomeofhisreaders,
Curryimplies)areequallysusceptibletoatribalismthatinterfereswithachievingthosegoals.The
implicationofthisanalysisisthataslongastheabusive,ideologicalmediawaroveranthropogenic
climatechangecontinues,bothsidesarelikelytofindtheirabilitytobeopenmindedaboutopposing
views,skepticalabouttheviewsofpeers,andoriginalintheirownspeculationstobediminished.
Finally,weconsiderargumentsexplainingwhythepublicshouldplaceitstrustthosewhoopposethe
consensusview(2Band3B).AgainsttheevidencebroughtforwardbyOreskesandothersaboutthe
overwhelmingnumericaldisparitybetweenthosequalifiedscientistswhoaccepttheconsensusand
thosewhorejectit,oneresponseisobfuscationpackinglistsofthousandsofskepticalscientistswith
individualswhoarenotscientistsorwhoseviewsaremisrepresented,insistingonequalmediatimefor
theminorityview,andsoforth.Wearenotconcernedwiththosetacticshere(butseeHogganand
Littlemore2009andOreskesandConway2010).Skepticshave,however,foundonepossiblyeffective
waytocounterthenumericaladvantageoftheiropponentsindebate.Thatistotrytointroducea
distinctionbetweenquantityandquality:toprofileindividualcontrarianscientistswithimpressive
credentialsandarguethattheiropinionshouldcarrymoreweightthanthefacelessmassof(asitis
alleged)theirmoremediocrecolleagueswhotakethemainstreamview.Solomon(2010)usesthistactic
inhisbookTheDeniers,establishingcrediblythatthereareseriousminds,somewithimpressive
credentials,whohavemisgivingsaboutthemainstreamview.AlthoughSolomonfailstodemonstrate
Copyright2012TheJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress
ThisarticlefirstappearedinKennedyInstituteofEthicsJournal,vol.22,no.2,June2012,pages183210
______________Thisistheauthorsedited/extendedversion,asofOct.25,2012______________

Page13of23

thatthemajorityviewisnotalsodefendedbyseriousmindswithimpressivecredentials,andalthough
thebookispaddedwithmisleadingprofilesofscientistswhosupporttheconsensusview(see,e.g.,
HogganandLittlemore2009,p.158ff),itisrhetoricallyquiteeffectiveinitsportrayalofcontrarians.Itis
effectivenotonlyonaccountofthescientistscredentialsbutalsobecauseitpaintsapictureofthe
scientistscharacter.Thesemen(alltheprofiledscientistsaremen)areportrayedasdoggedly
independentthinkers,pursuingintuitionandevidenceregardlessoftheopinionoftheworld.In
addition,theyareportrayedaseminentlyreasonable(i.e.,devoidofarrogance),andtheir
reasonablenessisstarklycontrastedwiththebuffetingofunreasonableprejudicetheyareallegedtobe
subjectedto,particularlyasregardsfunding.RichardLindzen,characterizedbyOreskesasamule,is
quotedbySolomonassayingthatalarmratherthangenuinescientificcuriosity,itappears,isessential
tomaintainingfunding.Andonlythemostseniorscientiststodaycanstandupagainstthisalarmistgale
(2010,55).
Thisjuxtapositiongetstotheheartoftheissueofcharacterintheclimatesciencedebate.Asthe
researchofDanKahanandothers(e.g.,Kahan,JenkinsSmith,andBraman2011)hasshown,cultural
cognitionappearstoplayaroleindeterminingwhetherapersonwillacceptordoubtthefindingsof
theclimatesciencecommunity.Amongthefactorsthatpredictdoubtareanindividualistorientation.
Individualiststendtovalueindependenceinitsmanymanifestations,fromeconomicselfsufficiencyand
limitedgovernmenttoisolationismininternationalaffairsand,ofcourse,intellectualautonomy.
Intellectualautonomyis,accordingtotheheuristicframeworkwehavebeenexamining,anessential
ingredientinthenormativestructureofscienceforguardingagainstgroupthink.Individualswithan
individualistprecognitiveorientationwhoviewthespectacleofalonescientiststickingtohis
convictionsinoppositiontoafacelessmajorityseeaheroicfigure,aherointhesamemoldastheman
whowasmartyredforhisreligiousconvictionsinanearlierera.
15
Thequestionoftherecalcitrant
scientistthenbecomesasubtlematterofmoralperception:fromonepointofviewheisastubborn
mule,sufferingfromadeficitofhumility.Fromanotherpointofviewheisaparagonofindependence.
Bothvirtuesareprizedinthepursuitofscience;onlyasmallshiftinperspectiveseparatesthepresence
ofonefromtheabsenceoftheother,makingthedifferencebetweenaheroandafool.
Summary and Concluding Remarks on the Limitations of Character
Assessment
InthispaperIhavesketchedaheuristicframeworkforevaluatingthequalityofascientificconsensus:
theextenttowhichitishardwoninthegiveandtakeofscientificdiscourse.Wehaveseenempirical
evidencefromtheclimatesciencedebatesthatsuchaframeworkiswidelyshared.Significantlyfor
thoseinterestedinsciencestudies,wehaveseenreasontobelievethatMertoniannormsofscienceare
aliveandwellinthemindandexpectationsofthepublic(andamongatleastsomescientists),
interpretedintermsofscientistscharacter.
Inthispaperwehavealsogottensomeinsightintothedynamicsofamajorcontemporarycontroversy
overscienceandexpertise.Asthereissolittleeffectivedialoguebetweenthefactionsintheclimate
Copyright2012TheJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress
ThisarticlefirstappearedinKennedyInstituteofEthicsJournal,vol.22,no.2,June2012,pages183210
______________Thisistheauthorsedited/extendedversion,asofOct.25,2012______________

Page14of23

sciencewars,theiraccountsofrealityhavedivergedtotheextentthattheysometimesseemtobe
inhabitingdifferentuniverses.Thereisvalue,Ithink,incompressingthoseuniversestogetherand
seeinghowtheymightbemadetoconform.Oneoutcomeisanappreciationoftheextentofcommon
groundtheyshare:inparticular,commonstandardsforjudgingthebehaviorandcharacterofscientists.
Thusitwouldbeprofoundlywrongforsciencecommunicatorsandclimatechangepolicyadvocatesto
assumethatthebulkofclimateskepticsareantiscience.Evenassomeskepticsholdexpertisein
contempt,manyskepticshaveastrongcommitmenttothenormsofscience.Attimesthiscommitment
seemsevenmorepuritanicalthanthatofthescientificestablishmentitself:asseen,forexample,in
skepticsdemandsformoreinclusiveparticipation(universalism)andmoreopensharingofdataand
methods(communalism).
Sinceclimatescienceissocontroversialandpolarizing,thereadermightwonderwhethermyaccountof
thedebatehasbeenafairmindedandreliableone.Infact,bythispointthereaderwillundoubtedly
havealreadyformedanimpressionbasedonthetoneofthearticle,itsreasoningandsource
attribution,comparisonofstatementsoffactwiththereadersownpriorknowledgeofthesubject
matter,andsoforth.Thereisnoescapingthatacriticalreaderwilljudgethearticleandforman
impressionoftheauthor,thetwojudgmentsbeingintertwined.
And,infact,theordinarycanonsofgoodscholarshipbearastrongfamilyresemblancetothescientific
norms.Whethertheauthorisascientist,ahumanist,orajournalist,wewanttoknow:isshespeaking
forherselforservingapartisanagenda?Ishereasonableorarrogant,willingorunwillingtoentertain
alternativepointsofview?Intheheuristicframeworkwehavebeenexploring,characteristakentobe
anindicatorofthereliabilityofinformation.Whenwefirstencounteranauthoronthepage,however,
inferencesaredrawnintheotherdirection:wejudgethetextandfromthatformanimpressionofthe
author.
Thisiscertainlytrueofmyownreading.AfewpagesofSussmans(2010)erraticsourceattributionand
meanspiriteddiatribeswasenoughtoproducetheimpressionofabullyoutofhisdepth,onwhomI
couldnotrelyasasourceofcredibleskepticalarguments.Smallbutcrucialdiscrepanciesbetweenmy
ownknowledgeofparticularhistoricalepisodesintheclimatewarsandSolomons(2010)otherwise
compellingdescriptionsproducedtheimpressionofacleverspindoctorandinclinedmetodistrusthim.
Bycontrast,Montford(2010)andontheotherside,OreskesandConway(2010)thoughclearly
impassioned,impressedmeasscrupulousinscholarship:diligentwithsourceattributions,respectfulof
thereader,andcarefultopointoutalternativeinterpretationsbeforedrawingconclusions.Having
formedanimpressionofthemthroughtheirtexts,Iwouldgladlyreadandbeinclinedtorelyonfurther
writingsbytheseauthors.
Ifcharacterisastable,inherentqualityofapersonatall,itcanonlybegaugedthroughintimate
personalinteraction,especiallyinunguardedmoments.Incasualpersonalinteraction,insecondhand
impressionsformedthroughthemedia,andinreadinganindividualswriting,weencounternot
characteritselfbutafacsimile,apersonafashionedbythesubjecthimselforbyothers.Suchapersona,
Copyright2012TheJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress
ThisarticlefirstappearedinKennedyInstituteofEthicsJournal,vol.22,no.2,June2012,pages183210
______________Thisistheauthorsedited/extendedversion,asofOct.25,2012______________

Page15of23

thoughafacsimile,mayneverthelessalsobestableandreliable.Ifanauthorwritesonepieceofgood
scholarship,wemightreasonablyexpectthenextpiecewritteninthesamepersonatobeofsimilar
quality.Somesourcesofinformationaboutcharacteraremorereliablethatothers:thewidedivergence
inpopularviewsofthecharacterofclimatescientistssuggeststhegeneralunreliabilityofimpressions
acquiredatsecondhandthroughmassmediaandtheInternet.Iftheheuristicmodelofthehardwon
consensushasvalidity,atrulyreliableassessmentoftheindependentmindednessand
disinterestednessofscientistswouldrequiremoreintimateknowledgethanmostlaypersonshave
accessto.Thosewithinthescientificcommunity,wehavealreadynoted,formandactonimpressionsof
eachotherscharacter.Itmaybepossibleforsocialscientiststoevaluatethecharacterofscientific
actorsthroughsurveyinstruments(e.g.,alongthelinesofAntes,Brown,Murphy,etal.,2007).Forthe
layperson,thebestsourceoffirsthandknowledgeofascientistscharacterisprobablythroughthe
scientistsownwritingstechnicalwritings,nontechnicalwritings,and(sadly)purloinedemails.
Buttheelusivenessofcharacterisnottheonlyobstacletoassessingit.Thereisalsothesubjectivityof
ourjudgment.Snapjudgmentsofcharacterarenotoriouslyandpredictablyunreliable(Kahnemanand
Tversky1973;Mischel1979).
16
WhenIseeacommentatorusetheexpressionhidethedeclineina
waythatsuggestsclimatescientistshaveconspiredtohidefromthepublicadeclineinglobal
temperatures,myfirstinstinctistowriteofftheindividualasanunscrupulouspartisan,ahackwhose
mindisclosedtoreason.Afterall,fromevenaglanceattheveryshortemailthatisthesourceofthe
phraseitshouldbeobviousthattheauthor,climatologistPhilJones,wasnotreferringtoadeclinein
realtemperatures(Climategateemail0942777075.txt).
17
Butmysnapjudgmentofcharactercouldbe
mistaken.Itispossible,afterall,thatthecommentatorhonestlybelievesJonestohavebeentalking
aboutdecliningrealtemperatures.Hemayhavebeenrelyingontrustedsources,forexample,whose
erroneousreportingwassoconsistentthatheneverthoughttoverifyitindependently.Hemight
deservetobejudgedapoorfactcheckerinsuchacasebutnotcondemnedashopelesslybeyond
reasoneddebate.
Thesesortsoferrorsarelegionintheclimatedebates,onbothsides.Andweshouldnotbesurprised.
Eventhemostscrupulousamongusdontcheckeveryfactasamatterofcourse.Werelyonthe
presumedaccuracyofsourceswetrustindividualswhosecharacter,wellknowntous,recommends
themasreliable(Shapin1995,3023).Intodayspoliticalandculturalclimate,therearetwolarge
campsofclimatecommentators,andanygivenindividualstrustedsourcesarelikelytoliealmost
exclusivelyinonecamportheother.AlthoughIhaveundertakentogroundtruthfactsdrawnfrom
sourcesonbothsides,IknowitwouldbetheheightoffollytopresumethatIcouldnothavemade
similarsortsofblunders.IfIhave,IhopeIwillbejudgednaiveratherthancunningorobtuse,andthata
readerwouldnotthinkitwastedefforttopointouttomemyerror.
ThelessonIwishtodrawfromthisconcludingdiscussionisthattooreflexivejudgmentsofcharacter
mayprecludeacharitablereadingandcloseoffopportunities(howeverrare,tothejadedclimate
warrior,theymightseemlikelytobe)forimprovedunderstanding.Acharitablereadingisonethat
attributeshonest,worthyintentionstotheauthor.Incaseofadisagreement,itinclinesonetoengage
Copyright2012TheJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress
ThisarticlefirstappearedinKennedyInstituteofEthicsJournal,vol.22,no.2,June2012,pages183210
______________Thisistheauthorsedited/extendedversion,asofOct.25,2012______________

Page16of23

ratherthandisengagetodelvemoredeeplyintotheissue,possiblytoengagetheotherindialogue,
effortsthatmaydeepentheunderstandingofoneorbothparties.
Alongsidehumilityandindependentjudgment,charityisanotherChristianvirtue(though,naturally,
hardlyuniquetoChristianity)thatwasrecognizedbysomeearlymodernEuropeansasadvantageousto
thepracticeofnaturalphilosophy.Manifestedastolerance,charitymeantbeingreceptiveto
contributionsfromanyquarterfromantagonists,fromtheuncredentialed,fromthoseofthewrong
classornationalityorreligion.Itdoesnotcomeeasily;itisadiscipline.Anditbearsafamily
resemblancetoMertonianuniversalism,whichmakessimilardemandsofinclusivityonthescientific
community.Merton(1973[1942],p.272)illustratesuniversalismwiththeearly,precedentsetting
exampleoftheadmissionintotheinnersanctumoftheRoyalSocietyofLondonofatalentedresearcher
ofthewrongclass(thedemographerJohnGraunt,ahaberdasherbytrade).
Ananonymousreviewerofanearlydraftofthisarticleaskedwhetherjudgingscientistsbytheir
charactercompromisesthenormofuniversalism.Thisisafascinatingquestion.Onewayofformulating
thenormofuniversalismistosaythatscientistsshouldevaluateeachandeverycontributionto
scientificdiscourseonitstechnicalmerits,regardlessofitssource.Ifbyscientificdiscoursewemeanthe
formalpeerreviewedliterature,thereisnoquestionthatcharacterjudgmentsbygatekeeperscouldbe
prejudicialandthereforewouldbeinappropriate.Hencetheimportanceofblindpeerreview.If
scientificdiscourseisinterpretedmorebroadly,thenormquicklybecomesunattainable,evenin
principle.Withlimitedtimetodevotetotheevaluationofotherswork,ascientistisboundtoperform
somesortoftriage.Andappreciationofotherscharacterislikelytoinformdecisionsaboutwhatis
worthspendingtimeonandwhatisnot.Itwouldbehardtofaultscientistsformakingsuchjudgments.
Buttheobservationsaboutcharitablereadingapplyhereaswell:characterjudgment,thoughuseful,is
fallible.Validandvaluablecontributionsmightcomefromsurprisingquarters.The(idealized)institution
offormalblindpeerreviewinscience,likeacharitablereadinginordinarywrittendiscourse,servesto
temporarilysuspendcharacterjudgmentsandcreateaclearingwheretheunexpectedcanoccasionally
takeroot.
Notes
1.Averitableconsensusofclassicsciencestudiesauthorsagreesonthispoint.JohnZimanwritesthat
theobjectiveofScience...isaconsensusofrationalopinionoverthewidestpossiblefield(1968,p.9,
emphasisintheoriginal).InRobertK.Mertonswords,Theinstitutionalgoalofscienceistheextension
ofcertifiedknowledge(1973,p.270).SeealsostatementstoasimilareffectbyNormanCampbell
(1953,p.27),C.P.Snow(1971,p.94),andWarrenHagstrom(1965,pp.273,281).
2.SeealsoMertonsessaysonScienceandtheSocialOrderandPrioritiesinScientificDiscoveryin
thesame1973collection.
3.Oneofthemostwidelycitedcontributionsfromthisperiod,anempiricalinvestigationof
counternormsdiametricallyopposedtothecanonicalnormsconductedbyIanMitroff(1974),is
Copyright2012TheJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress
ThisarticlefirstappearedinKennedyInstituteofEthicsJournal,vol.22,no.2,June2012,pages183210
______________Thisistheauthorsedited/extendedversion,asofOct.25,2012______________

Page17of23

difficulttocategorize.ThoughsomehavevieweditasarefutationofMerton,Mitroffhimselfconsidered
itratheranextensionofMertonsworkonsociologicalambivalence.ForMertonsownviews,see
Merton(1976,p.56ff.)andCronin(2004,pp.4445).
4.Unlessthesubjecthappenstobegeology,inwhichcasethereadermightfindthatscientificpapers
explicitlylayoutmultiplepossibleexplanationsfortheirobservationsratherthanmerelyseekingtotest
asinglehypothesis.ThemethodofmultipleworkinghypotheseswaspromotedbygeologistThomas
ChrowderChamberlininthelatenineteenthcentury,andgenerationsofgeologistshavebeentrainedin
it.Chamberlinsaiminintroducinghismethodwastocounterthedangersofparentalaffectionfora
favoritetheory(1965[1890])atendencywehaveidentifiedasexemplifyingbothbiasandinterest.
ForcontrastingviewsonthecontinuingutilityofChamberlinsmethod,seeJohnson1990andElliottand
Brooks2007.
5.Forexample,Hagstromhasobservedthatscientistsdevelopreputationsamongtheirpeersas
heavyweightsorlightweights(inpublishingvalidandvaluableresearch),asconscientiousorsloppy(in
reviewingtheworkofpeers),asteamplayersorleeches(inpullingtheirownweightincollaborative
efforts),astrustworthyorunscrupulous(inrefrainingfromstealingothersresearchideas),andas
possessingorlackingaproperhumility,objectivity,andcivility(1965,pp.18,24,28,86,115).Fromthe
Climategateemails,itisclearthatintheirprivatecommunicationsclimatescientistsshareandform
impressionsofeachotherscharacter,forbetterorworse(e.g.,whoisopportunisticandpublicity
seeking,whoisbrilliantbuthotheaded).ClimatescientistGavinSchmidt,inadescriptionofthepeer
reviewedscientificgrantmakingprocess,notesthatthereputationofaresearcherasacapableproject
administratorcountsforagooddealintheawardofnewgrants(2011).CollinsandEvansprovide
furtherexamples(2007,pp.50,67).Oneofthereasonsforgoingtomeetings,theyquoteone
scientistassaying,istomeetthescientistsinonesfieldsothatonecanformanopinionofthemand
judgetheirwork(2007,p.67).
6.Also,thesurveyisnotintendedtoresolveorarbitratedisputes.ButIdonothesitatetopointoutthe
strengthorweaknessofparticulararguments.Inthespiritoffulldisclosure,Ishouldmakemyown
orientationclear:havingmadeadetailedstudyofthecontroversy,Idonotfindthattheskepticalcase
(eitherintermsoffirstorderargumentsaboutthescience,insofarasIamequippedtoevaluatethem,
orsecondorderargumentsofthekinddiscussedinthispaper)meetsthehighthresholdthatwouldbe
requiredtoconvincemetorejectthemainstreamview.However,likeclimatologistJudithCurryand
otherswhohaveimmersedthemselvesinthedebates,Irecognizethatskepticshavemadesomevalid
points.
7.Foranintroductiontothiscontroversy,seePearce2010,p.55ff.
8.TheClimategateemailsarereferredtoherebytheirconventionalnumericalfilenames,whichappear
tohavebeenassignedbeforethehack.Noauthoritativeversionoftheemailshasbeenpublishedor
archivedforresearchers,butthecollectionisstillavailableatvariousadvocacyandgrassrootswebsites.
Copyright2012TheJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress
ThisarticlefirstappearedinKennedyInstituteofEthicsJournal,vol.22,no.2,June2012,pages183210
______________Thisistheauthorsedited/extendedversion,asofOct.25,2012______________

Page18of23

9.ThesocialconstructiviststrainoftheSSKtradition,whathasbeencalledthesecondwaveofscience
studies(CollinsandEvans2002),hasalsopromotedaflatteningofexpertise,thoughondifferent
theoreticalgrounds.
10.Evenbringinginprofessionalstatisticiansmightnotbeenoughtoresolveacontroversy.Thehistory
ofstatisticsincludesnotoriousintradisciplinarycontroversies(e.g.,Baysiansversusfrequentistsonthe
rightwaytointerpretprobabilities,RonaldFisherversusJerzyNeymanandEgonPearsononhypothesis
testingandtheuseofconfidenceintervals).IowethemetaphorofladdersofexpertisetoElizabeth
AndersonoftheUniversityofMichigan.
11.Thenotionofwidespreadfraudinclimatescience,thoughcommonenoughincertaincornersofthe
blogosphere,goesfarbeyondtheordinaryallegationsmadebypublicspokespersonsofskepticism,
severalofwhomareclimatescientiststhemselves.AsfarasIamaware,Perryhasnotyetpublicly
backeddownfromhisboldassertion,norhasheindicatedwhichscientistsorwhichdatahewas
referringtoorwhathissourcesare.
12.Theresponsefromtheskepticalcommunityhasincludedraisingconcernsaboutbias,interest,and
groupthinkamongtheClimategateinvestigatorsthemselves(e.g.,Montford,2010b).
13.See,forexample,thediscussionunderneaththeblogpostbySchmidt(2011).Whenthispointwas
maderecentlybyAlGore(German2011),hewaspouncedonbyrightwingpunditsforsupposed
hypocrisy,ashehimselfhasmadeasubstantialincomefromAnInconvenientTruthandalliedeffortsto
publicizeanthropogenicglobalwarming.Gore,ofcourse,isnotascientistanddoesnotclaimtobeone.
AmoreelaboraterebuttalbydefendersoftheconsensusviewIhavenotseenitmadeinprintwould
betoemphasizethedistinctionbetweentherolesofthesalariedscientistandtheentrepreneurial
advocate.Itisthosewhoengageinadvocacy(writingandpromotingbooks,cultivatingreputationsas
publicspeakers,etc.)whofacegrossincentivestosensationalize,overstate,orsimplystirup
controversy.Onthesideoftheconsensus,thetworolesarerelativelydistinctitistherareresearch
scientistwhotakesthetimetoparticipatedirectlyinthepublicclimatesciencewarsordevelopapublic
personaatall(Boykoff2011,8688).Onthesideoftheskeptics,thereappearstobeconsiderable
overlap.Skepticsactivelyparticipatinginclimatesciencetendalsotobeadvocates(oraresoughtout
fortherolebythethinktanknetwork),andadvocatestendtoemphasizetheirscientificcredentials,
suchastheyare.
14.Thisismyinterpretation,butitisalsosuggestedbytheauthorherself,whoappliesthekeyword
tribaltotheskepticsinoneinstance.SeealsoPearce2010,chapter18.
15.Adistinction,itwouldseem,needstobemadebetweenindividualismasaculturalvalueand
individualismasanideology.Apartisanattachmenttoanindividualistideologyistheexplanation
OreskesandConway(2010)give,plausibly,forthestandtakenbySingerandSeitz,coldwarriorsand
vigorousanticommunists,ontherangeofpublichealthandenvironmentalissuestheydabbledin:they
alwaystookthestandonthesideofthescientificissuethatarguedagainstgovernmentregulation.In
Copyright2012TheJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress
ThisarticlefirstappearedinKennedyInstituteofEthicsJournal,vol.22,no.2,June2012,pages183210
______________Thisistheauthorsedited/extendedversion,asofOct.25,2012______________

Page19of23

otherwords,thescientificissueswereimplicitlyturnedintoideologicalbattlefieldsbetween
individualismandcollectivism(withordinaryenvironmentalorpublichealthregulationstandinginfor
Sovietstylecommunism).Themoststridentcriticsoftheconsensusviewonglobalwarmingtodayare
perfectlyexplicitaboutdraggingtheirideologicalbaggageintothescientificarenaforexample,talk
showhostandmeteorologistBrianSussman,whoworkshimselfintoalathertoconnectglobalwarming
toKarlMarx(who,wearetold,loathed...America)bywayofintermediarysupervillainslikeRachel
Carson(Sussman2010).
16.InaseriesofstudiesDanielKahnemanandAmosTverskyclinicallydemonstratedthesystematic
biasespeoplehaveinmakingsnapjudgmentsandpredictionsofmanykinds,andcoinedtheterm
illusionofvaliditytodescribethemisplacedconfidencepeoplehaveinthosejudgmentsand
predictions(KahnemanandTversky1973,66).Asappliedtopersonalityandcharacter,theynotethe
commontendencytoexaggeratetheconsistencyandthepredictivevalueofpersonalitytraitsand
suggestthatpeopleappeartobelieveinahologramlikemodelofpersonalityinwhichanyfragmentof
behaviorrepresentstheactorstruecharacter(TverskyandKahneman1982,84).InhisNobelprize
autobiography,Kahneman(2002)describeshowtheseinsightsemergedinthecourseoftryingand
failingtopredictleadershippotentialinarmyofficers.
17.Joneswritesofaddingrealtemperaturestothetimeseriesinquestion,inordertohidesomething
elsenotstatedexplicitlyintheemail:namely,aspuriousdecliningtrendintheproxydata.Seechapter
14ofPearce2010fordetailsontheprocedure,theemail,andthecontroversy.
References
Anderegg,William;Prall,JamesW.;Harold,Jacob;andSchneider,StephenH.2010.ExpertCredibilityin
ClimateChange.ProceedingsoftheNaturalAcademyofSciences,21June.
Anderson,MelissaS.;Martinson,Brian;anddeVries,Raymond.2007.NormativeDissonanceinScience:
ResultsfromaNationalSurveyofU.S.Scientists.JournalofEmpiricalResearchonHumanResearch
Ethics:AnInternationalJournal2(4):314
Annas,Julia.2006.MoralKnowledgeasPracticalKnowledge.InThePhilosophyofExpertise,ed.Evan
SelingerandRobertP.Crease,280301.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.
Antes,AlisonL.;Brown,RyanP.;Murphy,StephenT.;etal.2007.PersonalityandEthicalDecision
MakinginResearch:TheRoleofPerceptionsofSelfandOthers.JournalofEmpiricalResearchonHuman
ResearchEthics2(4):1534.
Barber,Bernard.1952.ScienceandtheSocialOrder.NewYork:Collier.
Batheja,Aman.2011.PerrysSkepticismoverGlobalWarmingStrikesaNerve.StarTelegram(DallasFt.
Worth,TX),17Aug.Availableathttp://www.startelegram.com/2011/08/17/3297181/perrys
skepticismoverglobal.html#ixzz1cyzIGaHc,accessed6Nov.2011.
Copyright2012TheJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress
ThisarticlefirstappearedinKennedyInstituteofEthicsJournal,vol.22,no.2,June2012,pages183210
______________Thisistheauthorsedited/extendedversion,asofOct.25,2012______________

Page20of23

BenDavid,Joseph.1991.NormsofScienceandtheSociologicalInterpretationofScientificBehavior.
InScientificGrowth:EssaysontheSocialOrganizationandEthosofScience,ed.GadFreudenthal,469
84.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
Boykoff,MaxwellT.2011.WhoSpeaksfortheClimate?MakingSenseofMediaReportingonClimate
Change.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Campbell,Norman.1953.WhatisScience?NewYork:Dover.
Chamberlin,ThomasC.1965[1890].TheMethodofMultipleWorkingHypotheses.Science148(3671):
75459.
Collins,HarryM.1982.Knowledge,Norms,andRulesintheSociologyofScience.SocialStudiesof
Science(12)2:299309.
.1992.ChangingOrder:ReplicationandInductioninScientificPractice.Chicago:Universityof
ChicagoPress.
.2010.TacitandExplicitKnowledge.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
Collins,HarryM.,andEvans,Robert.2002.TheThirdWaveofScienceStudies:StudiesofExpertiseand
Experience.SocialStudiesofScience32(2):23596.
.2007.RethinkingExpertise.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
Crichton,Michael.2003.AliensCauseGlobalWarming.CaltechMichelinLecture,17Jan.Availableat
http://www.tsaugust.org/images/Lecture_by_Crichton_at_Caltech.pdf,accessed6Nov.2011.
Cronin,Blaise.2004.NormativeShapingofScientificPractice:TheMagicofMerton.Scientometrics60
(1):4146.
Curry,Judith.2009.OntheCredibilityofClimateResearch.ClimateAudit.org,22Nov.Availableat
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7826,accessed6Nov.2011.
Douglas,Heather.2007.ReviewofThePhilosophyofExpertise,editedbyRobertCreaseandEvan
Selinger.PhilosophyofScience74(4):55255.
.2008.TheRoleofValuesinExpertReasoning.PublicAffairsQuarterly22(1):118.
Elliott,LouisP.,andBrook,BarryW.2007.RevisitingChamberlin:MultipleWorkingHypothesesforthe
21stCentury.BioScience57(7):60814.
Fischer,Douglas.2011.EvidenceBuildsthatScientistsUnderplayClimateImpacts.DailyClimate,18Oct.
Availableathttp://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdcnewsroom/2011/10/climatealarmism,accessed6Nov.
2011.
Copyright2012TheJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress
ThisarticlefirstappearedinKennedyInstituteofEthicsJournal,vol.22,no.2,June2012,pages183210
______________Thisistheauthorsedited/extendedversion,asofOct.25,2012______________

Page21of23

German,Ben.2011.AlGoretoRickPerry:ClimateScientistsArentMotivatedbyMoney.TheHill,26
Aug.Availableathttp://thehill.com/blogs/e2wire/677e2wire/178431algoretorickperryclimate
scienceisntaboutthemoney?page=11,accessed6Nov.2011.
Goldman,AlvinI.2006.Experts:WhichOnesShouldYouTrust?InThePhilosophyofExpertise,ed.Evan
SelingerandRobertP.Crease,1438.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.
Haddad,Richard.2011.TheNewDeniers.AmericanThinker,17Sept.Availableat
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/the_new_deniers.html,accessed6Nov.2011.
Hagstrom,Warren.1965.TheScientificCommunity.NewYork:BasicBooks.
Happer,William.2011.TheTruthAboutGreenhouseGases.FirstThings,June/July.Availableat
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/05/thetruthaboutgreenhousegases,accessed6Nov.2011.
Hoggan,James,withLittlemore,Richard.2009.ClimateCoverUp:TheCrusadetoDenyGlobalWarming.
Vancouver:GreystoneBooks.
Huff,Toby.2003.TheRiseofEarlyModernScience:Islam,China,andtheWest.2nded.Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
.2007.SomeHistoricalRootsoftheEthosofScience.JournalofClassicalSociology7(2):193
210.
Hulme,Mike.2009.WhyWeDisagreeAboutClimateChange:UnderstandingControversy,Inactionand
Opportunity.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Jacques,Peter;Dunlap,RileyE.;andFreeman,Mark.2008.TheOrganizationofDenial:Conservative
ThinkTanksandEnvironmentalScepticism.EnvironmentalPolitics17(3):34985.
Johnson,J.G.1990.MethodofMultipleWorkingHypotheses:AChimera.Geology18(1):4445
Kahan,Dan;JenkinsSmith,Hank;andBraman,Donald.2011.CulturalCognitionofScientificConsensus.
JournalofRiskResearch14(2):14774.
Kahneman,Daniel.2002.Autobiography."Availableat:
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2002/kahnemanautobio.html
Kahneman,DanielandTversky,Amos.1973.OnthePsychologyofPrediction.PsychologicalReview80:
237251.
Kalleberg,Ragnvald.2009.CanNormativeDisputesBeSettledRationally?OnSociologyAsaNormative
Discipline.InRaymondBoudon:ALifeinSociology,4vols.,ed.MohamedCherkaouiandPeterHamilton,
2:25169.Oxford,UK:BardwellPress.
Copyright2012TheJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress
ThisarticlefirstappearedinKennedyInstituteofEthicsJournal,vol.22,no.2,June2012,pages183210
______________Thisistheauthorsedited/extendedversion,asofOct.25,2012______________

Page22of23

McElroy,MichaelB.,andSchrag,Daniel.2005.OverheatedRhetoric.HarvardMagazine,MarchApril,
2528.
Merton,RobertK.1973[1942].TheNormativeStructureofScience.Rpt.InTheSociologyofScience:
TheoreticalandEmpiricalInvestigations,26778.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
.1976.SociologicalAmbivalenceandOtherEssays.NewYork:TheFreePress.
Meyer,Gitte,andSande,Peter.2010.GoingPublic:GoodScientificConduct.ScienceandEngineering
Ethics18(2):17397.
Mischel,Walter.1979.OntheInterfaceofCognitionandPersonality:BeyondthePersonSituation
Debate.AmericanPsychologist34:74054.
Mitroff,Ian.1974.NormsandCounterNormsinaSelectGroupoftheApolloMoonScientists:ACase
StudyoftheAmbivalenceofScientists.AmericanSociologicalReview39(4):57995.
Montford,AndrewW.2010a.TheHockeyStickIllusion.London:StaceyInternational.
.2010b.TheClimategateInquiries.TheGlobalWarmingPolicyFoundation.GWPFReport1.
September.Availableathttp://thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpfreports/ClimategateInquiries.pdf,
accessed28May2012.
Oreskes,Naomi.2004.TheScientificConsensusonClimateChange.Science306(5702):1686.
.2011.OfMavericksandMules.PaperpresentedatAAASAnnualMeeting,19Feb.Abstract
availableathttp://aaas.confex.com/aaas/2011/webprogram/Paper3871.html,accessed6Nov.2011.
Oreskes,Naomi,andConway,ErikM.2010.MerchantsofDoubt:HowaHandfulofScientistsObscured
theTruthonIssuesfromTobaccoSmoketoGlobalWarming.NewYork:BloomsburyPress.
Oxburgh,Ron;Davies,Huw;Emanuel,Kerry;etal.2010.ReportoftheInternationalPanelSetUpbythe
UniversityofEastAngliatoExaminetheResearchoftheClimaticResearchUnit.12April.Availableat
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAP,accessed6Nov.2011.
Pearce,Fred.2010.TheClimateFiles.London:GuardianBooks.
Polanyi,Michael.1958.PersonalKnowledge:TowardaPostCriticalPhilosophy.Chicago:Universityof
ChicagoPress.
Romm,Joseph.2008.TheColdTruthaboutClimateChange.Salon.com,27Feb.Availableat
http://www.salon.com/2008/02/27/global_warming_deniers,accessed6Nov.2011.
Russell,AlistairMuir;Boulton,Geoffrey;Clarke,Peter;etal.2010.TheIndependentClimateChangeE
mailsReview.July.Availableathttp://www.ccereview.org,accessed6Nov.2011.
Copyright2012TheJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress
ThisarticlefirstappearedinKennedyInstituteofEthicsJournal,vol.22,no.2,June2012,pages183210
______________Thisistheauthorsedited/extendedversion,asofOct.25,2012______________

Page23of23

Schmidt,Gavin.2011.ReflectionsonFundingPanels.RealClimate.org,7Jan.Availableat
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/reflectionsonfundingpanels,accessed6
Nov.2011.
Shapin,Steven.1994.ASocialHistoryofTruth:CivilityandScienceinSeventeenthCenturyEngland.
Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
.1995.HereandEverywhereSociologyofScientificKnowledge.AnnualReviewofSociology21:
289321.
.2008.TheScientificLife:AMoralHistoryofaLateModernVocation.Chicago:Universityof
ChicagoPress.
Snow,C.P.1971.TheCaseofLeavisandtheSeriousCase.InPublicAffairs,8197.NewYork:Charles
ScribnersSons.
Solomon,Lawrence.2010.TheDeniers.Rev.ed.Minneapolis,MN:RichardVigilanteBooks.
Storer,NormanW.1966.TheSocialSystemofScience.NewYork:Holt,RinehartandWinston.
SurvivalistBoards.2011.Climate:CO2:Prediction.Availableat
http://www.survivalistboards.com/showthread.php?t=125895&page=21,accessed15Mar.2012.
Sussman,Brian.2010.Climategate:AVeteranMeteorologistExposestheGlobalWarmingScam.
Washington,DC:WNDBooks.
Tversky,AmosandKahneman,Daniel.1982.JudgmentsofandbyRepresentativeness.InJudgment
underUncertainty:HeuristicsandBiases,ed.DanielKahneman,PaulSlovicandAmosTversky,8498.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Ziman,John.1968.PublicKnowledge:TheSocialDimensionofScience.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press.
.2000.RealScience:WhatItIs,andWhatItMeans.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.