Posted by
BLOGASSAULT on Monday, February 22, 2010 12:31:05 PM
After all that has been revealed, and still being revealed, you would think they would take a step back and reassess the science regarding global climate change. With the whole thing in question now and most countries not wanting to participate in a agreement that is laden with errors in data and unproven and un-peer reviewed science, it is no wonder some are trying to save their beloved movement.
First, climate science is complex, and there is much that we still do not understand. Politicians, advocates and scientists who have claimed a level of certainty unsupported by evidence -- about exactly how climate change will unfold or is unfolding -- have not helped the cause. Second, as in any research effort being conducted by thousands of scientists across many years and many countries, mistakes will be made in the research or in its collection and reporting. The mistakes that have been revealed recently -- about, most prominently, the likely melting rate of Himalayan glaciers -- need correcting. But in the overall picture, they are trivial.
Politicians nonetheless have seized on both the trivial mistakes and the complexity of the science to cast doubt on the underlying and unrefuted truth of human-caused greenhouse gas accumulation. In many cases, it is hard to know whether they are being obtuse or dishonest, and hard to know which would be worse.
The funny thing is, the first statement the writer makes is the one thing that we kept trying to tell those that said
the debate was over. Over and over the "skeptics" kept telling them that there was no accounting for the sun in there studies, and no accounting for the mideviel warming period, and no understanding of the ice ages. What has sceince made
so clear that the small amount of warming we are having is do to us? Then, in 1998, a cooling trend started and they don't know why. But now they use the same arguement to explain their error away.
As for the second point, were does one begin? The mistakes are starting to look like the number of shoes once in Imelda Marco's closet, and they are still coming.
Listed below are just a few of the stories in recent weeks highlighting errors in the IPCC's fourth assessement alone:
I do agree with those on the enviro-side that none of this conclusivly proves that global warming is not real. But it does conclusivly prove that some people within the IPCC and other organizations that are involved with making policy are corrupt. But it doesn't end there. It has has also revieled the ways in which data is gathered. Using studys from green organizations, and information from those that have no scientific background show the inconsistancy and the total break-down of the peer review process within the community itself.
As I have said in the past, if it involves the U.N., it is probably suspect. This scandal proves it once again.