creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion General Opinion
Mona Charen
Mona Charen
14 May 2013
Obama Administration Scraps Free Speech

Two years ago, this column, along with others, raised an alarm about the Obama administration's decision … Read More.

10 May 2013
Hawking's Moral Calculus

Stephen Hawking, the world-renowned physicist and celebrity, has cancelled a planned trip to Israel to … Read More.

7 May 2013
Benghazi Ghosts Haunt White House

My iPhone buzzes on a regular basis with "news alerts" from Politico, The Hill and other sources. … Read More.

Liberals and Scientific Method

Comment

True to their mission as the organs of the liberal establishment, Time magazine and The New York Times ran stories in the midst of the great snowmaggeddon warning us against drawing any politically incorrect conclusions. "Skeptics of global warming," cautioned The Times, "are using the record-setting snows to mock those who warn of dangerous human-driven climate change — this looks more like global cooling, they taunt. Most climate scientists respond that the ferocious storms are consistent with forecasts that a heating planet will produce more frequent and more intense weather events." Time agrees: "There is some evidence that climate change could in fact make such massive snowstorms more common, even as the world continues to warm."

Note how The Times contrasts "skeptics of global warming" with "climate scientists." Bill Nye the Science Guy, appearing on MSNBC, used the same tactic, accusing skeptics about manmade global warming of "denying science."

Those who now protest that any particular weather pattern should not be confused with global climate have short memories. Only yesterday, they were attributing every forest fire, drought, hurricane, and toad disease to global warming. Remember the "plight" of the polar bears? Turns out that polar bear populations have been increasing, not decreasing, for the past 30 years — though, yes, one photographer did manage to snap a picture of bears seemingly stranded on an ice floe. The alarmists are in no position to complain now that isolated weather events are being used to draw vast and unwarranted conclusions.

More preposterous is the conceit that only the warmists are actually taking account of hard science. In fact, the scandal of the past several months (which liberals have not digested) has been the long-term and systematic abuse of science in the name of politics.

As Jillian Kay Melchior notes in Commentary magazine, the Copenhagen conference — supposedly the summit of climatologists and policymakers — paid little to no attention to the revelation of scientific fraud. The "climategate" e-mails from Penn State and East Anglia University were not trivial revelations.

They involved deception, intimidation, and manipulation of records by two of the leading research institutions whose data form the backbone of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Melchior writes: "Despite the drumbeat informing the public that science strongly supports the climate-change thesis, the hacked data paint a picture of a community of experts afraid of scrutiny, willing to use underhanded methods to silence doubters, and content to eliminate evidence that might undermine both their theories and their funding."

Scientists who disputed the manmade global warming hypothesis were not surprised by what the East Anglia e-mails revealed. It's an open secret that academic institutions have been inhospitable to heretics on this question for some time. Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences at Harvard, told Commentary, "These are not ambiguous. They're talking about suppressing other scientists. But there's no surprise. Those of us who are in the field have seen this. The only surprise is that someone actually got hold and sorted these documents."

Not only did scientists twist the peer review process, manipulate data, and attempt to suppress dissent, they also destroyed records — is this the scientific method for which liberals are going to the barricades?

The entire superstructure of climate alarmism rests on data that are doubtful and possibly fraudulent. The Science and Public Policy Institute has evaluated surface temperature records and found, among other things that 1) instrumental data from the pre-satellite era are virtually useless; 2) fewer than 25 percent of the 6,000 temperature stations that once existed are still operative; 3) comprehensive ocean data have been available only since 2003 and have shown no warming; and 4) higher-altitude, higher-latitude, and rural stations were the most likely to be lost, leading to a further serious overstatement of warming.

As John Hinderaker of the Power Line blog has reported, the U.N. IPCC report itself does not even accurately represent the views of the scientists who signed it. Key sections expressing caveats and acknowledging countervailing evidence were altered after the purported authors had put their names to it.

It isn't the snow outside that has discredited global warming. It's the chill the warmists have imposed on scientific inquiry. They are acting as enforcers of orthodoxy, not seekers of truth.

To find out more about Mona Charen and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM



Comments

3 Comments | Post Comment
To be fair and balanced, you should have also noted the following comment from the Time Magazine article you reference: "Ultimately, however, it's a mistake to use any one storm — or even a season's worth of storms — to disprove climate change (or to prove it; some environmentalists have wrongly tied the lack of snow in Vancouver, the site of the Winter Olympic Games, which begin this week, to global warming). Weather is what will happen next weekend; climate is what will happen over the next decades and centuries. And while our ability to predict the former has become reasonably reliable, scientists are still a long way from being able to make accurate projections about the future of the global climate."

I thought that article was done from a fairly neutral angle.

And also to be fair and balanced, it should be noted that the Science and Public Policy Institute is a Conservative-based think tank, so of course their data will be slanted a certain way.

Liberals have their agenda, and Conservatives like yourself have your agenda. The correct answer is that no one knows what the correct answer is regarding global warming. Where have all the common sense thinkers gone?
Comment: #1
Posted by: seabass
Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:30 AM
I would like to know your scientific source that Polar Bear populations are increasing. I could not find it anywhere searching the internet. You stated it as fact, but gave no source to verify it. And if what you said is true, there should be multiple sources. That is part of the scientific method which you scoff at, reproducibility.
Maybe "Climate Change" should be changed back to the old word "Pollution". I am wondering if you are Pro-Pollution? Why are people so up in arms about cutting down on pollution?
The point is, I do not want to eat, drink, or breath someone else's pollution just so they can make a buck. And Polar Bears shouldn't have to either. I care about the environment and don't understand why you don't.
Comment: #2
Posted by: TreeHugger
Fri Feb 12, 2010 12:25 PM
I too was struck by the Orwellian nature of Time's piece. To paraphrase: the reason it's getting colder is that it's getting hotter. True or not, it also sounds like an apology.
But an apology for whom; and why?
The benficiary seems obvious: the theory of human-induced global warming. But why defend it in the context of two massive winter storms? Perhaps for fear that people might start trusting their senses more than they trust 'experts' and therefore lose the will to support climate legislation which would then lead to a global disaster.
But this sort of journalistic 'nanny'ing'---protecting the masses from beliefs that conflict with those of climate "experts" truly IS Orwellian AND it begs the question: "Are the climate experts right?"
We should mistrust arguments that appear won upon appeals to authority. The fact is that if people are to support the massive taxation needed to significantly reduce industrial atmospheric carbon output, they need more than experts to convince them. They need palpable evidence and they are, we all are, correct to demand this. Too often the Emperor indeed has no clothes. Too often expert theories are later proven wrong. Yes, this is how science works, but not how policy SHOULD work.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Mark
Sun Feb 14, 2010 4:15 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Mona Charen
May. `13
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
28 29 30 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31 1
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Betsy McCaughey
Betsy McCaugheyUpdated 15 May 2013
Ben Shapiro
Ben ShapiroUpdated 15 May 2013
Joseph Farah
Joseph FarahUpdated 15 May 2013

7 Dec 2007 A Challenge to the Press

27 Nov 2012 Sore Winners

16 Oct 2009 The Democrats' Coming Defeat