Climate science: Lies and Cover ups

Last December, a series of emails were released showing a darker side to the climate change science. Climategate, as the scandal came to be called exposed, serious questions about much of what we have been told to be conventional wisdom were actually true. Even of the group admitted in an interview that yes, there has been cooling since 1995 and the famous Hockey stick theory, which stated that the medieval period was cooler than the present, was probably wrong.

The Hockey stick thesis has been discredited and while the mantra is that the science is still sound, the rejection of the Hockey Stick opened up the real possibility that climate change is strictly a natural phenomena and not strictly a human cause. A key element of the man-made climate change science simply disappeared. The worse is now the cover up that is happening.

A supporter of human cause of climate change, Clive Cook of the Atlantic Monthly wrote, “I had hoped, not very confidently, that the various Climategate inquiries would be severe. This would have been a first step towards restoring confidence in the scientific consensus. But no, the reports make things worse. At best they are mealy-mouthed apologies; at worst they are patently incompetent and even wilfully wrong.” Cook outlined the treatment of Michael Mann, the chief investigator of the Hockey stick, and essentially noted, “In short, the case for the prosecution is never heard. Mann is asked if the allegations (well, one of them) are true, and says no. His record is swooned over. Verdict: case dismissed, with apologies that Mann has been put to such trouble.” If Cook noticed this, the question is why the rest of the media has not noticed not only the data fabrication (or scientific mistakes if one is charitable) but the cover up masquerading as investigations.

Another aspect is the academic bullying that has occurred. In 2003, Smithsonian Institution Willie Soon and Harvard Sallie Baliunas published a piece in Climate Research challenging Mann’s Hockey stick which clashed many other independent paleoclimate studies. Mann and another scientist Phil Jones made it clear that they would have nothing to with the journal unless they rid themselves of the editor who allowed dissent from their point of view. Mann wrote to his colleague, “"I think we should stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues . . . to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board."

Patrick Michaels, a climate specialist with the University of Virginia, stated, “Climate Research and several other journals have stopped accepting anything that substantially challenges the received wisdom on global warming perpetuated by the CRU. I have had four perfectly good manuscripts rejected out of hand since the CRU shenanigans, and I'm hardly the only one. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, has noted that it's becoming nearly impossible to publish anything on global warming that's nonalarmist in peer-reviewed journals.” We are told that climate change is a decided science, but we now know that much of the science supporting man made climate change and the world is going to end has been manufactured and that there have been serious attempts to silence critics by denying them access to prestigious jounrals or grant money to study the issues. It is a bullying attempt that ends debate while creating false premise among the general public that scientists are in agreement on climate change. A researcher friend of mine described climategate as the scientific Watergate, only ten times worse.

Americans have been bombarded with bad science on this issue and for now, many Americans are becoming less trusting of the science so heavily politicized. Here is the reality of climate change. Climate change will happen because it has happened in the past. Just in the past 20,000 years, we have seen ice ages and warmer periods. Since the time of Christ birth and death, we have seen warmer climates and cooler climates that had nothing to do with man’s impact. Maybe man has a role in climate change but as the past has shown, nature has played a significant if not the dominant role in signficant climate change. The extremest of the climate change advocates have treated climate as if the world was set on a thermostat and could easily be maintained at the “perfect temperature” as if we know what is the ideal temperature for the planet. It is not that simple and the complications of climate change science have descended into a political battle becoming more and more independent of science.

Comments

Make sure to check out the comments on Facebook.

 

© 2015 TexasGOPVote  | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy