It is behind a pay wall, but if you are fortunate enough to have a subscription to The Australian, Matt Ridley’s article, Climate change: Politics and science are a toxic combination, is well worth reading.
Only if you can handle the truth, of course.
It commences:Back in December, some American scientists began copying government climate data onto independent servers in what press reports described as an attempt to safeguard it from political interference by the Trump administration. There is to be a March for Science in April whose organisers say: “It is time for people who support scientific research and evidence-based policies to take a public stand and be counted.”
Unfortunately, that is about as much of this excellent article I can reproduce, but it once more points out the fact, that KRudd’s “greatest moral issue of our time”, or some such, is a very serious moral issue alright, but not for the reasons he had in mind. AGW is one of the greatest attempted deceptions of all time.
Well, today they have a chance to do just that, but against their own colleagues who stand accused of doing what they claim the Trump team has done. Devastating new testimony from John Bates, a whistleblowing senior scientist at America’s main climate agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, alleges that scientists themselves have been indulging in alternative facts, fake news and policy-based evidence.
Bates’s essay on the Climate Etc. website (and David Rose’s story in The Mail on Sunday) documents allegations of scientific misconduct as serious as that of the anti-vaccine campaign of Andrew Wakefield. Bates’s boss, Tom Karl, a close ally of former US president Barack Obama’s science adviser, John Holdren, published a paper in 2015, deliberately timed to influence the Paris climate jamboree. The paper was widely hailed in the media as disproving the politically inconvenient 18-year pause in global warming, whose existence had been conceded by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change two years earlier.
Bates says Karl based the “pausebuster” paper on a flawed land-surface data set that had not been verified or properly archived; and on a sea-surface set that corrected reliable data from buoys with unreliable data from ship intakes, which resulted in a slightly enhanced warming trend. Science magazine is considering retracting the paper. A key congressional committee says the allegations confirm some of its suspicions.
Bates is no “denier”; he was awarded a gold medal by the US government in 2014 for his climate-data work. Having now retired he writes of “flagrant manipulation of scientific integrity guidelines and scientific publication standards”, of a “rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy” and concludes: “So, in every aspect of the preparation and release of the data sets leading into (the report), we find Tom Karl’s thumb on the scale pushing for, and often insisting on, decisions that maximise warming and minimise documentation.”
This is more than just a routine scientific scandal. First, it comes as scientists have been accusing US President Donald Trump and other politicians of politicising science. Second, it potentially contaminates any claim that climate science has been producing unbiased results. Third, it embarrasses science journalists who have been chronicling the growing evidence of scientific misconduct in medicine, toxicology and psychology, but ignored the same about climate science because they approve of the cause, a habit known as noble-cause corruption.
As is often the case, reader comments on the article are very insightful. Here are a few:Lorette18 MINUTES AGO
Climate scientists made the mistake to proclaim that climate change and global warming was settled science. It is not!. If you cannot develop models that accurately predict the future then you still only have a hypothesis.
It seems that some scientist and most politicians truly believe that it is settled science and if they get data sets that don't fit the theory, then they must bend the facts. The only outcome then is a discrediting of of all scientist, and themselves in particular. But by this stage the politicians are too invested to admit that they might have made a mistake.
Tamas37 MINUTES AGO
I always wondered what it would have been like to live behind the iron curtain; the lies, falsehoods and proclamations of success when failure was so obvious. And a political system that was wholly invested in such and absurd idea. But now I know, thanks to the climate caper.
Graeme1 HOUR AGO
It seems that some of the temperature 'readings' from central Africa came from places with no weather stations, in other words were just made up. It has been the case for years that the believers in CO2 causes warming have been 'adjusting' the data to match their beliefs.
If in business you adjust the figures to claim your concern is making bigger profits then one day it collapses and you are prosecuted for fraud. The Climate 'Scientists' are lucky that many of them have reached the end of their careers without that ending.
Responses
« Back to index | View thread »