After reading her latest guest post at CMR, I popped over to her blog to do a bit of reading. Amazing stuff, well worth reading, and she explains clearly both scientific and moral issues.

One post that really caught my eye starts thus:

The premise that we are no more than the sum of the genes we inherited from our parents is not only a dangerous reduction of humanity to a simple sequence of letters, but it is outright wrong.  Wrong both morally and scientifically.  Science is quickly learning that genetics is a lot more complicated that we thought.  It is not just about what genes you have but what genes are turned on or off.  A whole branch of genetics called epigenetics is dedicated to understanding how and why genes are expressed.  It turns out the sequence of DNA is only a part of the picture.  Environment also plays a very important role.  Let me give you a very powerful example that I use all the time.

Go look at the example. Read the rest. And I think the worst part is at the end:

Dr. Savulescu is by no means the only brain in an ivory tower suggesting we make sure only the “genetically fit” are born.  Brains with enough arrogance to think we even know how to define “genetically fit.”  I could go on all day listing the names of academics (and Nazi dictators) who have fallen in the genetic determinism trap.

Genetic determinism is scientifically invalid (increased risk is no guarantee), yet some scientists are willing to use the concept to create a master race. The Culture of Death continues to push and push and push, trying to make people “better” by culling the herd, killing the imperfect. If they had it, they’d use G-23 Paxilon Hydrochlorate on us.

What I am interested in is this: why should we trust the ice cores or any of the other proxy data sets?

Now, I’m not saying the data is incorrect. I don’t have the data itself to analyze, nor the time nor skills to do any type of a robust analysis myself.  I have no basis for discounting the ice core temperature proxies, that go back something like 800,000 years.  On the contrary, I can relatively safely trust them since both skeptics and advocates of anthropogenic global climate change (I think that’s its current incarnation) seem to be willing to use them.

My real question lies in a slightly different direction.  We are frequently told that “weather” and “climate” are two different things, which they are.  Weather is localized…it can be snowing in Pontiac and clear and sunny in Detroit, but both are in the same climate.  And when looking at global averages as a “global climate”, localized variations are less important.  They average out, with outliers on both ends of the spectrum.

But why are ice cores not considered a result of localized weather?  They will show the temperature in one region, not global averages.  In other words, they record weather at a location and not climate on a global scale.

Yes, there are other factors involved, other proxies from other parts of the world using different proxies and different technologies, but it seems to me that they are measured against each other, and balanced to make them consistent over known data.  Without getting into the validity of which data sets are chosen, isn’t it the case that the Yuma tree ring proxy data is calibrated to recorded data, and then extrapolated back to cover times before recorded data?  Isn’t the ice core temperature data calibrated to known recorded data (real measurements) and then extrapolated back 800,000 years?  Basically a “best fit” of samples overlapping recorded data then used to determine conditions for earlier times. (Note to self: find out what exactly is measured in the ice cores and how they correlate to temperatures).  And those extrapolations may be completely accurate (we have no real way of knowing, but it makes sense to treat them as accurate), but they have a potential flaw.

It seems to me that there’s a problem with relying too heavily on the proxy data, and that problem is that the proxy data measures the local weather in a few locations, and then is applied as a global average.

In other words, the proxy data measures weather, not climate.  Thus, it is unwise to use them as determiners of historical climate.

I’ll give an example. Take the ice cores.  Assume all of the science is correct, all of the transformations and analyses are 100% perfect (even though we have no real way of knowing this to be the case, let’s treat it as such.)  Doesn’t that simply tell us what the weather was like in the area from which the ice cores were taken?  How is that different from using the average daily temperature at Detroit Metro Airport and extrapolating back (and forward), at least as far as dealing with the problem of using localized data?

Geological temperature record seems to be a good way to cover this, since it’s not as limited in location.  Ice cores require the use of polar regions, particularly the south pole.  Tree ring data requires long-living trees that aren’t found everywhere.  But geology encompasses the whole earth, regardless of location or what will grow where.  Is it sufficient, though, and has a wide enough sample been used?  Can it be used for comparison to short term (geologically speaking) data?

What bothers me the most is the lack of outrage among other scientists.  There should be all sorts of complaints out there about how the scientific process has been undermined.  There should be people calling for the resignation or suspension of involved scientists pending review.  Scientists, corrupting science to drive a policy agenda?  It strikes at the very heart of what’s supposed to make science such a good tool: objective evaluation of collected data to explain what is observed and predict, again objectively, what will happen.

Good science relies on quite a few important legs.  One is objectivity.  Others include openness and repeatability.  The processes involved in adjusting the raw data to account for various factors (urban heat islands, movement of surface stations, etc.) should be clear and understandable.  It must be repeatable and reasonable.  Quality controls need to exist for any algorithms used to make those adjustments.  All of these things seem to be lacking in the case of AGW.

Without those things in place, it’s not science.  It’s just a bunch of self-proclaimed experts saying “trust us”.  Why should we trust them?  They’re not acting as scientists, they’re acting like magicians.  Their incantations are secret, not meant for the ears of mere mortals.  We are supposed to just accept their declarations without question.

And while I’m upset with the media’s poor coverage of this, and with the scientists involved, I’m even more upset with other scientists who should be raising integrity issues instead of defending this as “normal”.  They should be defending science, not scientists.  They should expect and demand that all scientists who put forth hypotheses give full disclosure of all relevant data needed to reproduce the results.

Where is the integrity in science?