Unlike some conspiracy theorists, I never bought into global warming as some conspiracy. I have been following this since Dr. James Hansen of NASA testified in congress about his alarmism. I was senior at Penn State when we had an extremely warm summer, and Congress called for hearings. Well, I have been on the skeptic side of the fence, but not far from the fence. Despite what some would think about my religious leanings, have never abandoned science and am always questioning the results until the observations become overwhelming. Since I am an atmospheric scientist by trade and study, the results that some have had have put on the skeptic side.
Well, the BBC sat down with Dr. Phil Jones from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. What he says in the interview is telling about more of an ends justifies the means sort of thought within the global warming group.
The emails revealed a form of “noble cause corruption” resulting in a loss of trust in climate science and climate scientists. Early proponents of global warming and environmental activists set the stage for the crisis with early opponents and corporate interests. The scientists, led by the example of Michael Mann, adopted a “bunker mentality.” Jones confirms this reading of the situation: that bunker mentality led directly to an erosion of scientific values and scientific practices, now under investigation by Parliament and a stumbling team hastily thrown together by UEA.
For those of you not familiar with Pajamas Media, they are a center right/libertarian news/opinion site, since I can find little analysis on the Climategate situation in the mainstream. When I have, it is poo-pooed or ad hominem attacks ensue. Read the whole article.
I was going to write something longer, but the video from Canadian Broadcasting Company sums up my ideas. My position has always been that the science, based on model predictions is not complete and that the physics incorporated in the models while always getting better will not emulate the world perfectly. There has been some evidence of some warming, but I have always had my doubts about the man-made parts. Not that we don’t contribute, but I don’t think to the extent that they have been alarming. I also think that don’t practice good stewardship, and when God said to subdue the land, He didn’t mean rape it, which we have, but that’s another post.
John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) posts articles on his blog about environmentalism’s extremes and provides a bit of commentary as well. The first article in the post that I have marked was interesting because I keep hearing about this war on science, but when it comes down to it, there isn’t.
“For six and a half years under President Bush,” Senator Hillary Clinton told an audience in October 2007, “it has been open season on open inquiry.” Senator Edward Kennedy, in an April 2007 speech at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, bemoaned the many ways in which “the truth is taking a beating” under conservative influence in Washington. One popular recent book on the subject is entitled The Republican War on Science; another, by former vice president and Nobel laureate Al Gore, is called The Assault on Reason.
But beneath these grave accusations, it turns out, are some remarkably flimsy grievances, most of which seem to amount to political disputes about policy questions in which science plays a role. Ethical disagreements over the destruction of embryos for research are described instead as a conflict between science and ignorant theology. Differing judgments about the proper role of government in sex education in schools are painted as a quarrel between objective public health and medieval prudishness. A dispute about the prudential wisdom of a variety of energy policy alternatives is depicted as a clash of simple scientific facts against willful ignorance and greed.
The American right has no desire to declare a war on science, and nothing it has done in recent years could reasonably suggest otherwise. The left’s quixotic defensive campaign against an imaginary enemy therefore has little to tell us about American conservatives-who, of course, do have a complex relationship with science, though it is not the one the left seeks to describe. But if this notion of a “war on science” tells us little about the right, it does tell us something important about the American left and its self-understanding. That liberals take attacks against their own political preferences to be attacks against science helps us see the degree to which they identify themselves-their ideals, their means, their ends, their cause, and their culture-with the modern scientific enterprise.
I have heard the same things from Democratic leaning scientists whom I respect, such as Neil deGrasse Tyson, a noted astronomer. When asked the question at a forum in Los Angeles, he responded with, and I’m paraphrasing, there is no Republican war on science.
Read the whole first article. You can read the second and third articles as well, if you want.
I saw this recently. Hmmm…someone pushing an agenda and sending out a retraction that most nobody hears about?
Usually, when I read something about climate change from Discovery Channel, it usually goes out and talks about man-made global warming. Sorry, but with my background in atmospheric science, there are too many things that the climate models lack to attribute things all to man’s disregard to taking care of the planet. However, this article surprised me. A good read for most laypeople.