I will quote some of Mike Hulme:
===
One of the central reasons we disagree about climate change is because we have different conceptions of what science is and with what authority it speaks – in other words, how scientific ‘knowledge’ interacts with those other realms of understanding brought to us by politics, ethics and spirituality….Too often the reasons we disagree about what to do about climate change are framed in this way, as disputes about the truth claims of some aspect of biogeophysical science – is the world warming; are greenhouse gases responsible; will this ice-sheet collapse? This reflects one view of science, the conventional Enlightenment view of science as an objective, disinterested endeavour incrementally leading us closer and closer to a universal and immutable view of reality … past, present and future. This is ‘normal’ science…

Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science – who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy – as on the facts of science. The IPCC is a classic example of a post-normal scientific activity. The IPCC is a large procedural assessment activity involving first of all scientists, but then later entraining a broad range of other experts from government, business, civil society to evaluate the quality of the assessment, before the modified text is presented to government representatives for their amendment and approval….

The unfortunate thing is that many people still hold onto a ‘normal’ faith in science such that it can first find truth, then speak truth to power, and that truth-based policy will then follow. Fred Singer has this view of science; so does Mark Lynas. That is why they reduce their exchange to one about scientific truth rather than about values, perspectives and political preferences. If the battle of science is won, then the war of values will be won.

If only climate change were such a phenomenon and if only science held such an ascendancy over our personal, social and political life and decisions. To the contrary, in order to make progress about how we manage climate change we have to take science off centre-stage…What is ‘self-evidently’ dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth-seeking; we might gain some insights into the question if we recognise the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists – and politicians – must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth-seeking…

Climate change is too important to be left to scientists, least of all the normal ones.

– Professor Mike Hulme School of Environmental Sciences, and Director Tyndall Centre University of East Anglia
===

I am not legally knowledgeable enough, nor up on the emails, to know whether we have genuine fraud–which I believe includes an intention to deceive. But clearly, the emails raise very large issues about process. If they were “true believers” then that may make fraud harder to prove, but makes the process concerns even stronger.

tom

These guys didn’t make a mistake. That would be ok. The knew they were wrong but carried on anyway.

this might end up being REAL interesting, and have large ramifications before it’s done. i read once where the reason east germany first opened up the berlin wall to let easterners into west berlin was due to a misinterpreted memo from on high that said no such thing. they had no intention whatever of allowing that to happen, but happen it did just the same. shortly afterward, the wall fell, and took the whole iron curtain with it. acorns & oaks; horseshoe nails & kingdoms, all that.

Actually, life does begin with conception according to science. The question is if it is a human being.

And yes, evolution vs creation science could be a prototype of the AGW argument. The objective evidence supports a yet-disproved theory; but the creation side points to gaps in the evidence not as “more work needs to be done”, but as “this gap indicates that the whole theory, even the parts proven, are false”. But a lot of the evolution side has been derelect in informing the public on how science works — and has started to frame the debate the same way people here have avocated the global warming debate be framed.

(DrTorch) Same claims are routinely made supporting Darwinism. It is very much a monoculture.

It’d be nice to tear down that house of cards too.

DrTorch, I see similarities between the most extreme catastrophic AGW chicken littles and Creation “Scientists”. Both groups tell me that I must ignore my own apparent self-interest. Both groups predict Armageddon. They both smear good scientists who are backed by reason and evidence.

I respect that we’re on tangent now, so I’ll try to be brief as well. I’m not sure how the pro-life belief creates a big government apparatus to enforce it. But even if that is true, isn’t protection of life pretty much the top priority of government?

Second, I fail to see how science gets sacrificed on that belief. If anything, recent science has adamantly supported it. And yeah, I’m familiar and adept with that science.

Finally, your concerns about the “science” of evolution should be of concern to you. It is the forerunner to AWG, establishing the precedent of the “monoculture.” The approach to research, the tactics and language used for critics are all identical. Even if evolutionary theory gets proven by science, their approach deserves reproach.