Friday, 4 December 2009

We Don't Understand - But We Know We're Right

The Times, in its leading article yesterday and only about two weeks too late, finally got around to acknowledging that Climategate happened and was a bit of a scandal. Scientists it thundered, actually it was more of a whimper, should resist the temptation to become partisan in their work. It then wrote a partisan article repeating various Green Meanie claims about climate change. One can only presume it was written, at least in part, by the paper's environment correspondent - the article did admit that they didn't fully understand the science behind climate change and so this is almost certainly the case.

Notwithstanding this lack of knowledge and the Climategate scandal, which showed that AGW adherents have been actively preventing sceptical scientists from having their work published, the Times is still convinced by 'the science'. They don't bother to explain why, probably because they don't really understand, but they do point out that the IPCC, every major government and The Times are all in agreement. Well, that's okay then.

They then make the usual and specious claim that there is a formidable array (a majority they allege) of leading scientists who back their side of the argument, ignoring the fact that Climategate has shown that one side of the argument has been caught out colluding to prevent the other side from being heard.

But in fact there are plenty of leading scientists who disagree. Hundreds in fact. Proper PHDs and professors - the lot. They've signed declarations to that effect. It's just that environment correspondents never bother speaking to them, presumably having been asleep the day that they were being taught journalism.

But anyway, as we keep having to point out, consensus is not science. Science is about evidence and the evidence for AGW does not stack up. At the beginning of the 20th century there was a consensus that Newtonian physics was the final and definitive word on the subject. Then along came a man called Einstein. Just last week we learnt about Rom Houben, a man who was in a coma for 23 years but who was conscious the whole time. Several experts agreed, one might even call it a consensus, that he was brain dead, a vegetable. They wanted to stop feeding him. It was a consensus until one expert agreed to take another look.

The main stream media are still dragging their feet on this issue, still buying the propaganda of the Green Meanies and even, in the case of The Independent this week and in the wake of the turmoil in Australia, trying to create divisions within the Conservative Party because one or two MPs have dared to speak out and question the consensus. The great hot air festival in Copenhagen will most likely be an expensive waste of time which will come to no agreement. But, as has been revealed these last couple of weeks, albeit grudgingly in some sections of the media, we cannot be sure that the science is saying what we have been told it is saying. Before we saddle ourselves with mind boggling costs, shouldn't we be certain we know what we are doing and what we are trying to achieve?

No comments:

Post a Comment

All comments are published at the absolute discretion of the owner of this blog, but there is a general presumption towards publication. This is a free speech blog.