Climategate: Exposing Global Warming
There is good science, which helped mankind get to the moon, allowed for longer life and health through medical science and improved wildlife habitat through better biological and wildlife science. Then there is junk science or “on demand science” used by industry, or environmental groups or “mono-maniacs” to drive political agendas and one issue public policy. Thus we have the Waterloo for the global warming advocates, as e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU), located in the University of East Angila (British-UK) have revealed political advocacy over sound science, global warming trends unsupported by the actual science and collaboration with friends (of global warming) at the expense of peer reviewed research. All using UK taxpayer dollars, and probably some US and other country taxpayer dollars to push a political agenda under the guise of global warming science. Climategate, as critics of global warming have called it, is turning the world of climate science upside down.
In the Wall Street Journal editorial page on 11.27.09 Kimberly Strassel writes:
Will Climate Scandal Be a Tipping Point? So declares Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe, taking a few minutes away from a Thanksgiving retreat with his family. "Ninety-five percent of the nails were in the coffin prior to this week. Now they are all in."
This week he's looking prescient. The more than 3,000 emails and documents from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) that have found their way to the Internet have blown the lid off the "science" of manmade global warming. CRU is a nerve center for many of those researchers who have authored the United Nations' global warming reports and fueled the political movement to regulate carbon.
Their correspondence show a claque of scientists massaging data to make it fit their theories, squelching scientists who disagreed, punishing academic journals that didn't toe the apocalyptic line, and hiding their work from public view. "It's no use pretending that this isn't a major blow," glumly wrote George Monbiot, a U.K. writer who has been among the fiercest warming alarmists. The documents "could scarcely be more damaging." And that's from a believer.
This scandal has real implications. Mr. Inhofe notes that international and U.S. efforts to regulate carbon were already on the ropes. The growing fear of Democrats and environmentalists is that the CRU uproar will prove a tipping point, and mark a permanent end to those ambitions. Wall Street Opinion Journal
For more Opinion from the WS Journal
Iain Murry is the Vice President for Strategy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, http://cei.org based in Washington, DC. He has been a long time critic of global warming science, in particular with the lack of scientific protocol on climate change research that attributes global temperature variations exclusively to human activity.
“So what does this all mean? It does not mean that there is no warming trend or that mankind has not been responsible for at least some of the warming. To claim that as result of these documents is clearly a step too far. However, it is clear that at least one branch of climate science — paleoclimatology — has become hopelessly politicized to the point of engaging in unethical and possibly illegal behavior.
To the extent that paleoclimatology is an important part of the scientific case for action regarding global warming, urgent reassessments need to be made. In the meantime, all those responsible for political action on global warming should stop the process pending the results of inquiries, investigations, and any criminal proceedings. What cannot happen is the process carrying on as if nothing has happened.” Iain Murray, CEI, Wash DC
And news from England indicates that the University of East Anglia’s “Climate Research Unit” CRU is moving towards releasing information, as the public outcry over how the climate scientists at the CRU handled their research. Lack of peer reviews and lack of scientific protocols have been exposed in over 3,000 leaked e-mails and documents from the CRU.
“Releasing the CRU’s data files is a big breakthrough in the scandal and begins the process of bringing climate science into line with other scientific disciplines. It is standard practice in most scientific research to make data and methodologies available to other scientists in order that they can be checked and conclusions confirmed or questioned. In much climate science, secrecy has been the norm and many scientists have in effect demanded that their conclusions be accepted without any way to scrutinize their research. Thus the nations of the world have been embarking on policies that could cost trillions of dollars based on little more than assurances that “we’re experts and you can trust us.” Myron Ebell, CEI, Wash, DC
Source: Myron Ebell, Director of Energy & Global Worming Policy, Competitive Enterprise Institute, http://www.globalwarming.org
No comments:
Post a Comment