If you are a devoted believer in man-made catastrophic global warming, this will be a hard post for you to read. They say sunshine is the best disinfectant, so know that this is written in an effort to help you. The latest news is that some global warming supporters are asking for the movement to start over.
There was a meeting yesterday of 150 climate scientists. At the meeting, Brittan's official Meteorological Office (also known as the Met Office) encouraged climate scientists to produce,"… a new common trove of global temperature data that is open to public scrutiny and 'rigorous' peer review." According to Fox News, this new effort would:
"verifiable datasets starting from a common databank of unrestricted data"
"methods that are fully documented in the peer reviewed literature and open to scrutiny;"
"a set of independent assessments of surface temperature produced by independent groups using independent methods,"
"comprehensive audit trails to deliver confidence in the results;"
"robust assessment of uncertainties associated with observational error, temporal and geographical in homogeneities."
This sounds like a very good attempt to make global warming a legitimate science. The only problem is the Met Office is assuming the results of the data before it collects it. Fox News quoted the Met Office as saying, "…we do not anticipate any substantial changes in the resulting global and continental-scale trends." If that's true, then why go through the effort? Shouldn't the science go where the data leads it and not draw conclusions ahead of time?
The real problem, and the reason for the exercise, is that serious questions have been raised about global warming in the last few weeks and months. There are no good answers for these questions. The Met and other global warming supporters need something to make their favorite cause look real. There have been a number of black eyes given to the supporters of man-made global warming in recent months. Here is a partial list:
Leaked emails from the University of East Anglia showed where prominent global warming scientists in the U.K. and the U.S. failed to comply with Freedom of Information requests.
These same emails showed an effort on the part of these scientist to prevent any dissenting views from being published in peer reviewed journals. To be clear: this was a political tactic, and not one used to debate scientific findings.
The Chief of East Anglia, Phil Jones, admitted that much of the data used to create the now infamous "hockey stick" graph shown in Al Gore's movie, and relied on in the IPCC report put out by the United Nations, has been lost.
Phil Jones also is on the record admitting there is no "statistically significant" global warming in the last 15 years. This isn't my claim, this is the director of one of the largest bastions protecting the theory of man-made global warming. Mr. Jones admitted in the same interview that two previous periods (1910 to 1940 and 1975 to 1998) both showed similar warming trends.
The 2007 IPCC report released by the United Nations has been exposed to have included un-reviewed claims and used the reports from activist organizations without reviewing their accuracy. The IPCC had to recently retract a statement from the report claiming that the Himalayan Glaciers would disappear by 2035 knowing the statement was false when it was placed in the report. The UN has claimed the statement was inserted,"…purely to put political pressure on world leaders."
- Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) has asked the Department of Justice to launch an investigation into the activities of Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State and Dr. James Hansen of NASA. Senator Inhofe argues that recent revelations concerning global warming show that both of these individuals may be guilty of research misconduct and may have broken the law. I don't know if the Obama administration will pursue this, but it is one more strike against two of the leading supporters of global warming in the United States.
I can appreciate the predicament supporters of global warming are in. If any other theory had faced similar problems, it would have been rejected by now. I would support the effort the Met Office has suggested, provided it was done correctly. How? With the Scientific Method firmly in place. Don't use the data to prove your point, collect the data, and see what it tells you. Until they can do that, I will continue to believe man-made global warming is simply a political cause, and not science.