Taking a bite out of climate data
Filed Under: Environmental News, Green Politics on September 26, 2009
One of the biggest problems is that much of today’s science is politicized. We do this at a huge level in this country since most science is funded via either federal grant or by private grant from federally-active (lobbying) companies. This is especially true in pharmaceuticals and climate science.
Earlier this month, I published my thoughts and a link to an article on how skewed the funding towards global warming is, heavily favoring studies on global warming and rarely funding any skeptical studies or follow-ups. Those follow-ups, especially, are extremely important. They are what make up the honest peer review portion of science, which is virtually non-existent in climate change and global warming studies.
Why is it so important that the science not be vetted? Well, the article below, reprinted from National Review Online (hat tip to Watts Up With That? for the link), explains. If no one’s looking, you can do whatever you’d like with your numbers and come out with a pre-determined conclusion. That’s why. No wonder so many people are still so skeptical about global warming. When the so-called scientists behind the issue can’t even be honest about their research, what do you expect?
In my view, a large portion of the “climate science” claimed to be supporting global warming is no better than the pseudo-bureaucratic-science the FDA uses to approve things like genetically modified foods and questionable vaccines. If you don’t believe me, read this report from Joanne Nova (8 pages, PDF) entitled Exile for Non-Believers. In it, she details the story of one climate scientist whose career was destroyed thanks to his research into polar bears and his questioning of the popular global warming hypothesis.
So here is the first part of The National Review Online story:
The Dog Ate Global Warming
Interpreting climate data can be hard enough. What if some key data have been fiddled?
Imagine if there were no reliable records of global surface temperature. Raucous policy debates such as cap-and-trade would have no scientific basis, Al Gore would at this point be little more than a historical footnote, and President Obama would not be spending this U.N. session talking up a (likely unattainable) international climate deal in Copenhagen in December.
Steel yourself for the new reality, because the data needed to verify the gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared.
Or so it seems. Apparently, they were either lost or purged from some discarded computer. Only a very few people know what really happened, and they aren’t talking much. And what little they are saying makes no sense.
Read the rest at the original by clicking here.
