Here's a collection of articles regarding what has come to be called "Climategate." It needs cleaning up, but I'm having some issues with Typepad right now.
From the Examiner:
Charles Kruthammer: "The global warming science is not junk science, but it's speculative. It's based on incomplete data. It's based on computer models that rest on assumptions — that, in turn, rest on an understanding of how the globe’s climate controls itself — that [are] extremely incomplete."
Cory Doctorow at Boing Boing explains scientists are only human, like the rest of us.
"There's this myth in wide circulation: rational, emotionless Vulcans in white coats, plumbing the secrets of the universe, their Scientific Methods unsullied by bias or emotionalism. Most people know it's a myth, of course; they subscribe to a more nuanced view in which scientists are as petty and vain and human as anyone (and as egotistical as any therapist or financier), people who use scientific methodology to tamp down their human imperfections and manage some approximation of objectivity.
But that's a myth too. The fact is, we are all humans; and humans come with dogma as standard equipment. We can no more shake off our biases than Liz Cheney could pay a compliment to Barack Obama. The best we can do-- the best science can do-- is make sure that at least, we get to choose among competing biases."
With that in mind, this article at Sodahead notes there's not a concensus among ALL scientists on climate change:
A team of scientists has sent a letter to all U.S. senators warning that a claim there is "consensus" in the scientific community on the climate change issue is false.
The letter dated Oct. 29 reads in part: "You have recently received a letter from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), purporting to convey a 'consensus' of the scientific community that immediate and drastic action is needed to avert a climatic catastrophe. . .
"The claim of consensus is fake, designed to stampede you into actions that will cripple our economy, and which you will regret for many years. There is no consensus, and even if there were, consensus is not the test of scientific validity. Theories that disagree with the facts are wrong, consensus or no."
Not there's not entertainment value in all the conspiracy talk. Jib Jab has produced a spoof YouTube video including the phrase "hid the decline" which appeared in one of the hacked e-mails.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk
Here's the WSJ editorial take:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574559630382048494.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
"The response from the defenders of Mr. Mann and his circle has been that even if they did disparage doubters and exclude contrary points of view, theirs is still the best climate science. The proof for this is circular. It's the best, we're told, because it's the most-published and most-cited—in that same peer-reviewed literature. The public has every reason to ask why they felt the need to rig the game if their science is as indisputable as they claim."
---
My test is simpler. Al Gore made some dire predictions of what would happen to Earth if we didn't make drastic changes in ten years. About half that time has already passed, with few substantial changes having been made. If I can live five more years, I can see if his predictions come to pass. If not, I'll have to assume he was at least exaggerating.
I do hope mankind will try to avoid things which harm the Earth. But, the US cannot afford to agree to things countries like China will not agree to.
Recent Comments