Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Rather confusing

Climate alarmists seem to have adopted the Dan Rather defense: Just because we lied doesn't mean it's not true.
Like Ed Begley's rant on YouTube, they shout down every question about the global warming theory with "peer review."
They claim that it ain't science if it ain't had peer review.
But let's peer at peer review a bit.
If you have a cabal that includes climate scientists who lust for billions of dollars in government funding to study "climate change," then they have an excellent incentive for them to find evidence of climate change, as long as they attach the caveat that "more research is needed." Almost as much incentive as a politician who promotes their work and stands to make millions in profits from efforts to "combat" global warming.
If this cabal controls whose research gets published -- peer review -- then it controls the debate.
Oddly enough, this is exactly what we find in the emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
One scientist said darkly, "we may have to redefine peer review" to keep another scientist from publishing his research questioning the idea that humans are causing the planet to heat up.
Several of the alarmists claim there is no peer reviewed evidence against global warming.
Yet, in 2005 after a Wall Street Journal story pointing out flaws in the theory, especially the "hockey stick" graph so beloved of the alarmists, a congressional investigation began.
The committee wrote to the author of the hockey-stick theory and in the letter said that in, "peer-reviewed articles in Science, Geophysical Research Letters, and Energy & Environment, researchers question the results" of his work.
Galileo Galilei, the father of modern science, wrote a paper in 1632 challenging the consensus by suggesting that the Earth revolves around the sun. As a result, he was tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy," and forced to recant. He spent the rest of his life under house arrest.
I wonder if Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems was peer-reviewed?
I wonder who is more religiously dogmatic -- the Inquisition or the Climate Change Community?

No comments: