The cold water that has been thrown on Global Warming

Beaufort Observer (2009-11-24)

The Washington Post has an article today (11-23-09) about the now infamous Global Warming Emails. It is not a pretty picture.

What the WaPo article highlights is the campaign that has gone on to suppress by intimidation the scientists who have questioned the conclusion that there is global warming (beyond the normal cycle) and what it is caused by. The emails show that the data and the interpretative analysis has, in some cases, been manipulated to produce the “desired” conclusion. The article pinpoints two ways this is done: By using what is known as the “peer review” process and the professional publication system. In short, what it shows is that the supposedly “scientific research” community is just as political as any other system that pushes a particular point of view but tries to make it appear as objective. Such as the media.

The cold water that has been thrown on Global Warming

Beaufort Observer (2009-11-24)

The Washington Post has an article today (11-23-09) about the now infamous Global Warming Emails. It is not a pretty picture.

In case you missed the original story, click here.

What the WaPo article highlights is the campaign that has gone on to suppress by intimidation the scientists who have questioned the conclusion that there is global warming (beyond the normal cycle) and what it is caused by. The emails show that the data and the interpretative analysis has, in some cases, been manipulated to produce the “desired” conclusion. The article pinpoints two ways this is done: By using what is known as the “peer review” process and the professional publication system. In short, what it shows is that the supposedly “scientific research” community is just as political as any other system that pushes a particular point of view but tries to make it appear as objective. Such as the media.

What the article omits from scrutiny is the money chase in scientific research. There the issue is who gets the grants and contracts that fund the salaries of these “objective” scientists. While that is another story, we would posit that money is the real culprit, and driver, in this global warming debate.

We should say that not all scientists or researchers are out to manipulate the knowledge base within which they operate. But obviously some are. And that in and of itself means that simply because a paper or a book is published by a “respected” journal or publishing operation or reviewed by “the right people” does not make it valid or legitimate. In the emails it can be seen that there was a conspiracy to not cite the works of some of the opponents of the “party line” on global warming. And the article makes a point about the manipulation that occurs when supposedly prestigious professional journals that publish “summary of the research” documents that are used to generate funds or impact public policy pick and choose which research will be reviewed based on who the authors are rather than on the validity and reliability of the research methodology.

Peer review, publishing in referred journals, vitae padding and the nefarious inclusion and exclusion in the delineation of “leading authorities” is nothing but a political game. It is a game played by a tight-knit club and should be seen for exactly what it is…a game. That is not to suggest that everything the Club produces is bogus but it does say that great care must be taken in interpreting what the Club puts out.

We’re not scientists but this much we do know. Much of the global warming science is based on modeling. Anyone who has ever tried to develop a model that will accurately predict future events knows that assumptions must often be used to “fill in the holes” where you do not have exact data or knowledge. And the more uncontrollable variables included in the model the less precise its projections are going to be. If this were not true many more people would have gotten rich in the stock markets. It is no more realistic to presume that you can develop a model that will predict what global temperatures will be doing a hundred years from now, or ten years from now, than it is to predict what the price of corn, or porkbellies, is going to be ten years or a hundred years from now.

As we see it, the mistake too many of the paloclimatologists make is to contend that there is no room for doubt about their conclusions. There is much doubt simply because of the variability involved in the science. That does not make the science invalid but it does make it much less than precise. And we would suggest way to imprecise to change public policy that would result is tremendous public expense when the science cannot be any more precise than it is.