Lets take a worst, worstest possible case scenario. Lets pretend that we find out tomorrow that Darwin made it all up. (Which he did, sorta, since he was theorizing more than observing, but lets just set that aside because it screws up my premise…)
So what? Wallace came up with very much the same ideas independently, tons upon tons of research has confirmed the theory of evolution. As a practical reality, it would lower our estimation of Darwin personally, but the theory would be supported by other research to such an extent, it wouldn’t matter.
Now, of course, anti-evolution knuckle-walkers would have a field day, insisting that this would erase the entire theory of evolution at one blow. Wouldn’t be true, wouldn’t stop them.
If all of the research on global warming were based on these earlier investigations, that is, if the data of further investigation rested upon a presumption that the Anglia data was solid, then the pyramid is inverted, the structure of the pyramid rests on its weakest point, the apex, the point. And that could only be important if no other research, conducted independently, came to similar conclusions.
Ideally, we like to pretend that all scientists are free of any preconceptions and bias, that no scientist ever sets out to disprove a colleagues favorite theory. We also like to pretend that our children depend on our advice and wisdom to make major decisions, but that isn’t true either. We know as a fact of human nature that some of the people who ended up delivering research that supported AGW probably started out to disprove it, esp. when we consider that it wasn’t all that popular a notion.
And of course, funding. If you have established yourself early on as a skeptical observer as regards AGW, and propose a research program to confirm or repudiate, you are more likely to a friendly reception with such industry supported foundations that provide grants for the ah, furtherance of science. Wernstrom, of course, sets out to examine Farnsworth’s thesis without any prejudice or preconceptions. Because he is a scientist, and scientists are quite above such petty motivations. That his research is financed by Mom’s Industries (as Mom’s Industries likes to mention on its PBS ads…) is of no consequence, purely coincidental. (This is one reason why scientists benefit from a liberal arts background, like theater, and pantomime. If you can do “trapped in a glass box” and “walking against the wind”, “keeping a straight face” is a cinch…)
We may therefore be assured that some of the research that supports AGW didn’t really start out that way. And in the interests of clear objectivity, such new and groundbreaking research would in no way depend on the previous research, since it would not take such results as a “given”. It is highly likely that a lot of later research, but still comparatively early, found confirmation for AGW to the chagrin and consternation of its principal investigators and funders. Many great advances in scientific theory are as much “Oops!” as “Eureka!”.
Frankly, I think that research that is biased against a theory but results in confirmation if probably more valuable and useful that that which originated in the pristine purity of scientific curiosity. If you investigate something and find that the results run directly counter to your preconceptions, you have learned something very important indeed!
AGW was not a popular thesis when first proposed, and I wouldn’t be that surprised to see “fudging”, conscious or no, in those early results, its really hard to report “yeah, I took a metric buttload of your money and found diddly-squat…”.
But at least some of the research that followed was inspired to refute AGW, academic pretensions of purity notwithstanding. The consensus that has formed around AGW was not willingly embraced by eager partisan Gorebots. At least some of what is now considered supporting research was funded by organizations fervently wishing for, and probably already convinced of, solid refutation. At least some of that research was conducted and paid for by people who pretty much “knew” what they were going to find, but didn’t.
In an unrelated example, considerable money was spent to pursue the theory that lung cancer was caused by a mutagenic virus, and cigarette smoking had little if anything to do with it. Turns out its crap, but we did find out that there are viruses than can cause cancer, just not that one. The frontiers of science expand, just not to the benefit of the funders.
To sum up, then: even if we prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that these “hockey stick” theorists were lying scumbags operating with the connivance of the Gore/Soros/ACORN juggernaut…it hardly matters.
(Of course, this is probably why Aleuts no longer abandon their elderly on ice floes, they can’t find one without a polar bear jealously guarding it, and nobody wants to watch Grandmamma getting shredded…)