Walter Russel Mead writes at The American Interest about the recent report by investigators from the Climate Change scientific community, which happens to clear the Climate Research Unit of the East Anglia University (where all those embarrassing emails were swiped and published), and thus the UN Interagency Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They did no wrong, according to the report of people with careers vested in climate change and the climate change community.
In Walter Russel Mead’s words, my own feelings are as follows
In sum, the mainstream press seems to be swinging around toward the views expressed on this blog: that the scandals may not discredit or even really affect the underlying scientific arguments about climate change but they do cast doubt on the perspicacity of the movement’s leadership — and that a fundamental rethink is called for.
- I am satisfied that the data used, as well as data available to the world, has been irretrevably doctored to support a finding of AGW – anthropogenic (man made) global warming.
- I am satisfied that elected officials – politicians – have used the banner of AGW to further their careers and that elected officials and bureaucrats have used the banner of AGW to expand the scope of their authority and power.
- I am satisfied than in a “publish or perish” world of academic study, that increasingly alarmist and pessimistic findings are required to obtain funding and facilities, and to achieve the publication and recognition researchers are required to obtain, to progress in their careers.
I am satisfied that careers have been terminated or disrupted, reports and findings hidden, banned, or intimidated out of existence, that might have disagreed with the AGW community findings and agenda.
What does this mean? I dunno. I believe that what is called science, among the global warming so-called “science” community, the warmers, has obscured the actual recording of data and analysis of what that data means. That is, the globe may be warming, and it certainly seems to be becoming less mild, but there is no one apparently free to report findings unbiased by the agenda of the warmers. And I distrust, vehemently, the warmers and their reports and especially their predictions.
Which leaves a quandary.
See, I recall a credible report that the mildest decade on record was the 1950′s. For those that don’t recall, or disregarded their world history, there was sharp upturn in consumption of fossil fuels, productions of steel and other materials in production facilities that paid scant attention to pollution potential, and long before anyone worried much about fuel conservation in internal combustion engines. Some refer to this period as World War II. Coincidence? Probably. I think, myself, that the 1950′s was a watershed time, an easing of environmental tensions between the last ice age and the (probable, sometime) next ice age or other significant environmental event. That is, it makes sense that every decade since the 1950′s will continue, for some time to come, to be less “mild” than the previous decade. When counting decades, recall that the sun has a major turbulence cycle on an 11-year long period. And that there appear to be some longer term (2300 year?) cycles as well.
I was taught that the origin of technology in civilization was when people started living in the temperate zones, when shelter and techniques were needed to adapt to cold winters and seasonal changes. Will this current excursion of the environment be as empowering in the chronicles of human development?
I look to those like Sharon Astyk in her Casaubon’s Book blog on Peak Oil and global warming, her Chatelaine’s Keys blog on after-the-peak gardening, food prep, and living, and John Michael Greer’ ArchDruid Report for guidance and insight into social and economic changes due to Peak Oil – which happen to coincide with what those positing AGW advocate.
But I won’t be asking the UN/IPCC or CRU at East Anglia University what they think.