Thursday, November 26, 2009
Climategate - US Congress To Investigate
Unlike the British news outlets, the US news is now reporting on the Climategate emails, it's not just Fox (video above) CBS is also giving this some prominence on their TV news and website. Now the US Congress has decided that it is serious enough to warrant an investigation. Gerald Warner has more HERE.
It is a reflection on the UK political scene that these emails have been hacked from a British University, involve British scientists and yet the media is largely apathetic to the news and is not giving it much attention. Furthermore, that a foreign legislature has felt the need to look into the actions before the UK Government, and probably in that absence of any kind of UK Government investigation. There may be much more to be revealed in this story, as it seems that New Zealand's research data may have been "massaged" to present the results desired rather than to represent the true conclusions of science.
I am troubled by that claims of a scientific nature are coming under a cloud of ambiguity. Science is science, it is the function of uncovering the facts of how things work and explaining and reproducing those effects. If the CO2 cheer-leaders all act like Ed Begley Jr in the above clip, they will lose the argument.
There is, I think a general acceptance that we should not pump chemicals into the air, and dump pollutants into the sea. There is a tangible and explainable science to recycling our materials. The CO2 argument is different, CO2 is a naturally occurring gas, a combination of two of Earths basic and necessary elements, Carbon and Oxygen; Cloroflouorocarbons have no history of abundance in our environment. CO2 has been around on earth for millions of years, but Climatologists are making claims on two decades of primary research.
We owe it to ourselves to be crystal clear about science, especially when we are set to make laws and take actions that affect all of us on a daily basis. In fact, "we" are not making those decisions, the decisions are being made again by "experts" and unelected leaders. Beyond a reasonable doubt is probably the best term that should be applied. As far as I can tell, nobody in the world has been able to show a negative effect of CO2 using sound science. Computer models that have been presented have been exposed as having implanted data applied to fill in gaps that if removed lead to different conclusions; Graphs that supposedly plot data are shown to not represent the real data at all, and I keep reading that Weather Station data is presented in a selective way. Why also are so called "Climatologists" so reluctant to release raw data behind their research? If other Scientist cannot reproduce your results, it is not Science, it is a claim.