Confusing science with politics

How society should proceed in the face of a changing climate is the business of politics. Political arguments about climate change are routinely mistaken for scientific ones.

Scientific method involves consideration of all of the facts, not just the ones you agree with. The new US Senate Report sponsored by Senator Imhofe may widen the discussion of climate change to a more productive level.

Contrary to what many believe, there is no scientific consensus on how society should proceed in the face of a changing climate. The evidence of the IPCC needs to be treated for what it is – not as
the last word on the science of climate change, but as a contribution
to a political process. A political process that has barely even

The IPCC is not, as is frequently claimed, 2500 of the worlds best climate scientists. The composition of the IPCC includes a website-designer, administrative assistants, and network administrator in the self-proclaimed group of "worlds best climate scientists".

This is precisely the misconception been challenging, following claims made by Andrew Dessler about the Imhofe 400 list.

The public remains unconvinced that the agenda pushed by global warming alarmists has merit. Some of us feel that all-expense paid trips to Bali on chartered jets are not a meaningful show of serious intent to help the situation.

More discussion and more facts may lead to more useful conclusions. My personal favorites involve the relatively ignored effects of solar cycles.

This entry was posted in News blogging and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to Confusing science with politics

  1. Hello David,

    Tired of waiting for politics and politicians to defeat those who are purposely destroying our planet? What would you do if given the pivotal wisdom required to drive a stake through the heart of these evil bloodsuckers’ hidden power sources? Would you complain because it’s not your “thing” or would you show some courage and do what is right for the sake of all life?

    Use this special “gift” (rosenrot…) wisely…


  2. My point is that I see no benefit in fixing something that is not broken.

    Rhetoric and ad hominum attacks do not make a good case for the current push to sell carbon credits or to ban CO2 emissions.

    The jury is still out on whether global warming is a natural cycle or all Bush’s fault. Greenland was a lot warmer in the past as I recall.

  3. Max says:

    Hi David,

    I fully agree with your message. The whole global warming hysteria of today is driven by politics, not by science.

    IPCC is a political body, not the “gold standard” scientific body of expertise on climate that some claim it to be.

    Leaving aside the myth of “scientific consensus”, you make a good point that the “scientific method involves consideration of all of the facts, not just the ones you agree with”.

    This is one of the key weaknesses of the IPCC as evidenced in its February 2007 “Summary for Policymakers” report.

    There are many examples where IPCC has ignored published scientific studies that contradicted its claims:
    ·Of ice mass loss in the Antarctic ice sheet (1993-2003)
    ·Of ice mass loss in the Greenland ice sheet (1993-2003)
    ·Of acceleration of sea level rise in the latter part of the 20th century
    ·Of reduction of Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the last part of the 20th century
    ·That temperatures of the last half of the 20th century are the highest in the past 1300 years (denying existence of a well-documented MWP)
    ·Of increased global atmospheric water vapor content
    ·That discrepancies between the surface and satellite temperature records have been reconciled
    ·That the urban heat island (UHI) distortion of the surface temperature record is negligible
    ·Of recent increases in tropical cyclones, droughts, heat waves and other severe weather events resulting from anthropogenic greenhouse warming (AGW)

    These are some of the questionable IPCC claims relating to past and current climate, where IPCC has ignored (or “rejected” or “refused to accept as correct”) published scientific studies that contradicted its claims.

    There are also many questionable claims regarding projections of future climate changes, many of which build on the claims related to past and current climate and on computerized climate models using various assumed “storylines” and “scenarios”, which are specifically designed to give alarming results.

    So you are right.

    This is pure politics and has little to do with “science” or the scientific method.

    Thanks for a good lead article.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

÷ 1 = six

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.