“Do not consider it proof just because it is written in books, for a liar who will deceive with his tongue will not hesitate to do the same with his pen.”
I am skeptical of man made global warming. Having said that, I like to think that I am open to any reasonable interpretation that the data bears out. For many years we have been plied with data and computer models of an impending climate crisis. I have observed these reports and have tried to keep an open mind despite the socio-political bent of the scientists who are eager to produce them.Recently, however, the mask has slipped and much of the behind closed doors “research” of some of the leading global warming climatologists has been revealed.
Emails from climatologists at the Climate Research Unit based at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom have surfaced due to the work of some computer hackers. The fact that the hackers were wrong in illegally obtaining the documents doesn’t change the content that has surfaced. Included in the documents are attempts by these climatologists to suppress data that is “problematic” to their models. In other words, they attempted to cover-up findings that contradicted their global-warming worldview.
Covering the story syndicated columnist and author Jonah Goldberg writes:
First, the climate change industry is shot through with groupthink (or what climate scientist Judith Curry calls “climate tribalism”). Activists would have us believe that the overwhelming majority of real scientists agree with them while the few dissenters are all either crazed or greedy “deniers” akin to flat-earthers and creationists. These e-mails show that what’s really at work is a very large clique of scientists attempting to excommunicate perceived heretics for reasons that have more to do with psychology and sociology than physics or climatology.
Second, the climate industry really is an industry. Climate scientists make their money and careers from government, academia, the United Nations and foundations. The grantor’s want the grantees to confirm the global warming consensus. The tenure and peer-review processes likewise hinge on conformity. That doesn’t necessarily mean climate change is untrue, but it does mean sloppiness and bias are unavoidable.
So what does this do for the whole global warming discussion? Well, with the Copenhagen climate summit on the horizon we should be highly cautious about any agreements for carbon emission reductions. Such agreements, in my opinion, are nothing more than attempts to confiscate wealth from developed nations to distribute to the third world. If we want to aid the third world, which the US does, we should do so under the umbrella of charity not of “science”. Let there been no ambiguity that until global warmings’ leading scientists begin to act like scientists and not charlatans they are not deserving of our ears or our wallets.
By the way, did you hear about the record snowfalls across the U.S. this year? Poetic justice? It does seem to make global warming out to be a little flaky.