Saturday, December 19, 2009

Laughing Through the Apocalypse

On the lighter side of a serious issue, I think this duo from Minnesota are a lot funny than Al Franken! I first came across there work at the start of Climategate with the now famous "Hide the Decline" video. It seems they have been busy for some time now creating these parodies. In addition to being humorous they certainly have some insights into the climate change issue and the personalities linked to it. Check out Minnesotans for Global Warming.

Saturday, December 5, 2009

It's Time to Investigate Climate Science

The recent release of information from the Handley Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the UK has raised profound doubts about the reliability of the science behind claims of anthropogenic global warming. The emails strongly suggest that a small group within the climate science community with an agenda has conspired to gain control of climate science and skew it toward their preconceived viewpoints.

Given that this work as been the primary basis for a series of reports produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). And, the findings of this group are the scientific bases for the current push to reorient the global economy in such a way as to emphasis reducing carbon dioxide emissions; we need a full investigation of climate science to determine its credibility. To proceed with the Cap and Trade Bill or any other carbon mitigation efforts until such an investigation has been completed would be unwise.

One must properly view the Handley revelations in the context of over two decades of controversy in the climate science field. The emails seem to show scientists altering data in order to push their agenda. For example they clearly show the scientists unwillingness to share data with critics in the famous (or infamous) hockey stick chart that was central to the third IPCC report. Statistician Ross McKitrick’s efforts to conduct an independent review of this controversial chart were met of considerable obfuscation. McKitrick’s analysis ultimately showed that the creators of the hockey stick chart had used selective and biased data to produce the result supporting a 20th century surge in warming. In response the closed group of scientists focused on attacking the credentials of their critics rather then the substance of their arguments.

What emerges from the Handley emails is that the key scientists behind the IPCC, many of whom are funded with taxpayer dollars, have endeavored to be the sole arbiters with considerable success of who has the standing to address climate issues. They have had editors of journals removed who have published papers not to their liking. They attack fully credentialed researchers for not publishing in the journals that they control. In this way the have set up a “Catch 22” situation in which to be worthy of having a paper published a scientist must agree with them. They then proceed to claim that all recognized scientists, i.e. published in the journals that control, have a consensus. This is pure sophistry.

There should be a full investigation of the activities of the climate science community. They have received a considerable amount of government research grants. Certain scientists have denied any wrong doing and should of course be given a chance to explain themselves. However, it is possible that crimes have been committed if knowing false statements were made in proposals to acquire government funding for their work. Most importantly we need to have true review of the state of our knowledge on the global warming issue before any consideration be given to passing the Cap and Trade Bill.