Climategate's Greatest Legacy may be a Healthy Skepticism of All Science-Based Policy

Scientistst should not pout that they lack the compelling charm of a television spokesperson when raising the alarm about global warming.

The climategate scandal has brought into the stark light of day the tenuous connection between global warming -- and the facts. Both the temperature record and the climate computer models are so badly damaged that the hollywood touch, complete with makeup and special effects, cannot repair their image.

This is unfamiliar territory for scientists, most of whom prefer a smidgen of notoriety with a heavy dose of privacy over the heated and politically charged debate. The sparks fly when science enters an area where the discoveries do not produce direct economic value but has heavy implications for how people behave. Global warming regulations and taxes fit that description. Another example is evolution, where many religions depend on a certain outcome of the evolution/creation question. While evolution has little economic value, the moral credibility of many religions and therefore how their members believe and live depend critically on the outcome of the debate.

When a scientific study is primarily of economic value; for example, that a new radio frequency becomes technically feasible for a next generation of cell phone, the controversy is a relatively quiet one behind corporate doors: Will the new radio work? And will the success of the new product justify the investment? If the science is wrong, it is quickly found out (the radio has limited range through walls). In this environment, the science is self-correcting (either fix the problem or move on to a different product), and it happens quickly (in a matter of months to a few years). The emotional attachment is there for a few advocates of the technology, but for the most part, the choices can be made dispassionately.

Undoubtedly, we will continue to face more emotionally charged science in politics. Next up, health care is a technological, moral and economic matter. We develop more and more exotic ways to save lives, but they are getting expensive. An MRI scan can identify tumors that might not otherwise be detected, but the cost is so high to routinely scan every American, that it is dismissed as impractical. Today, that is. But it is routinely used on the elderly in senior care, some of whom are so near the end of life, they could not undergo an operation or treatment if a problem is detected. The test is useless for such a patient. We are already spending money without thinking about how best to spend it and it can only get worse as these services default to entitlements.

It can get pretty confusing, especially when the science is faulty in the case of global warming, where huge government policy implications depend on a certain outcome. What the Climategate scandal teaches us is to be skeptical of the science and to "Follow the Money". Scrutinize who has something to gain from the policy that the science advocates. It is from this "analysis" that the most clear-headed policies can be achieved. And that healthy skepticism will help us keep vigilant in other fields. Thank you Climategate.