Once again, proponents of global warming find themselves replacing science with hype. CNN has a typically breathless piece with the usual tropes: global warming is indisputable fact, human activity is the cause, and the hockey-stick graph is irrefutable proof of it all.
The problem with that is that the report itself doesn’t support those conclusions at all. For instance, their version of the “hockey stick” graph is much, much less pronounced than the one used by environmentalist groups. Furthermore, their data indicates that while the 20th Century appears to be an outlier, the data we have on global climate over the past centuries isn’t entirely reliable. We know based on hard scientific evidence that there was a period of significant warming around the year 1000 (when Norse settlers were in Greenland and wine was made in England) and cooling during the Middle Ages. The contention that temperatures were constant and only rose during the 20th Century is simply not true.
Furthermore, thorough methodological review of the study finds a number of holes. Instead of being a slam-dunk case, the NAS study throws more doubt into the global warming debate.
The way this study is being hyped only proves that when it comes to global warming, science takes a back seat to huckerism. Science is an adversarial process, and the idea that climatologists all agree that global warming is real, is caused by man, and has a strong effect on our lives is a lie. Unfortunately, a cloud of groupthink has settled over much of the scientific community, and science suffers as a result.
UPDATE: This also shows the ignorance of the mainstream media on basic science. The NAS report finds evidence of the Little Ice Age – which so happened to be in full swing about 400 years ago. Of course we’re going to be in the hottest temperatures in the last 400 years – when you start with a baseline that’s artificially depressed you will find warmer temperatures. This is just junk science.
What’s even worse is the idea that we’re in the warmest period in 1,000-2,000 years. The NAS report makes it quite clear that the data going back before 1600 is not reliable enough to draw scientific conclusions from. Those media reports which make this claim are essentially lying through their teeth – not that anyone should be surprised by that.
It should be obvious to everyone that the only people with a monopoly on the truth regarding global warming are either currently on the payroll of the oil companies or formerly on the payroll of the oil companies. How insane are these scientists unanimously agreeing to the dangers of global warming with their fancy peer-reviewed studies, when they’re not even carrying the obligatory Exxon-Mobil employee access card in their wallets?
And a scientist who is on the payroll of an environmental action group or employed by a government agency whose funding comes from identifying potential “threats” isn’t biased?
This is one of those typically idiotic leftist arguments that doesn’t pass an instant of rational thought. Plenty of scientists have cast doubt on the man-made global warming hypothesis and one study does not constitute proof – in fact had you actually read the NAS study (which, let’s face it, you clearly have not bothered to do) you’d see quite plainly where they argue the exact opposite of what the media is presenting.
But hey, why should a smart-ass like you bother to read anything when you clearly know better than everyone else?
If anyone is up to having a little fun reading I recommend Freakonomics by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner. It’s a great summer book. Anyway, light heartedly the author(s) explain in laymen terms what statistical analysis is and is not capable of. The authors do not address global warming directly (that I remember) but I think their other examples can easily be extrapolated to global warming.
What always boggles my mind is how both sides of this issue, and both sides on the evolution issue for that matter make the claims that scientists unanimously agree… fill in blank . My claim is that most scientists are not informed, do not do the research themselves and therefore their opinion is mute.
Even if we were to only poll climatologists, how many climatologists do you think exist that actually study global warming trends with there own scientific instruments? 10,000? 1000? 100? Less?
This is a good article with some global warming solutions.