Wherein I indulge my hobbyist's interest in tropical weather and contrarian views about Global Warming and other matters well out of my control.
By: TampaWeatherBuff, 3:44 PM GMT on November 29, 2009
This blog entry is the first in reply to Dr. Masters' piece about what he dubbed the "Manufactured Doubt" industry. Claims of "doubter" perfidity, apparently, suffice as a kind of fig leaf for revelations emanating from the whistle-blown emails and source code from CRU, which show so-called disinterested "scientists" engaged in much the same Procrustean jiggering of data.
The main argument I set forth in this and subsequent blogs on this topic is that scientific research needs to be demonstrably apolitical to have any more authority than a campaign commercial. That science has been politicized in the past, is being politicized now, and will be politicized in the future, is a given. Curiously, the same happens with religion and economics all the time. The only practical question here is: How can we be sure the process is more or less fair?
Sadly, I conclude the global warming debate has been hopelessly co-opted and corrupted by politics and needs a complete reset. The people running the UN panel, not to mention many in government now like "Science Czar" John Holdren, are political hacks of a decidedly left-leaning persuasion. This means they *want* the science to show a crisis, to justify what are essentially globalist/redistributionist political policies, rooted in concepts of social justice that have no place in "hard science," and are not justified based on objective data but rather subjective valuations of "good" vs. "evil." In Holdren's case in particular, the program is radical, and well beyond the pale of mainstream political ideas. That such an ideologue as he got in this position of power is an unfortunate fact with which voters must contend in the next congressional elections.
These ideologues are sooner adherents of Cloward-Piven's theory of manufactured crisis, than they are believers in the scientific method.
What has happened is that science has been romanticized. The myth goes like this: Everyone is on the take, lobbying for private gain, and untrustworthy---except the vaunted "scientist." So if we could make it seem as if all scientists agree about something, this should trump politics, right?
Except, it turns out scientists are very much fallible human beings, with political leanings and an interest in self-preservation every bit as strong as the evil lobbyists.
The indisputable fact is that the global warming trend has flattened for reasons the "scientists" do not yet fathom---or in any case, the predictions of the trends made by their computer models have not manifested in reality.
This alone should be a red flag that the rush to Copenhagen is perhaps a bit premature, and all the dire predictions of armageddon are not quite "gospel truth." Even more spurrious than the conclusions of whether and how much global warming is caused by man, are the alleged solutions, which preclude any other view of the causes than the most doubtful -- namely, man-made CO2 emissions.
In subsequent entries I will examine how the political cards have been played, and the "objective science" manipulated to say what is convenient to a particular political position, and not necessarily what is true, let alone actionable on the scale envisioned by the political forces behind Copenhagen.
Disclaimers: Yes, I am a global warming "doubter" as opposed to a global warming "believer." No I'm not a climatologist. But aren't scientists supposed to be professional doubters? Aren't citizens supposed to be capable of learning enough to apply their common sense to the issues of the day?
Isn't one of the alleged benefits of political freedom that free people can arrive at conclusions and vote their conscience, and that overall this will result in the greater good, than when power is put in the hands of elitist know-it-alls, who disdain the "common man"?
I ask this because I perceive in the hysteria, hype and political program of the global warming "believers" a view of democratic process that is hostile to individual liberty, and biased in favor of a governing elite, who have the power to force individuals to obey their will, because, well, they're so damned educated, and their knowledge is barely fathomable to the "common man."
Such perverse sentiments are rather freely expressed in the released emails by the very players who claim political transcendence because of their vaunted status as "scientists." So it's a relevant question.
The views of the author are his/her own and do not necessarily represent the position of The Weather Company or its parent, IBM.