Nothing sacrosanct about science
As seen in today's Stafford County Sun:
Quote of note...
“I discussed the ‘systematic and documented abuse of the scientific process by which an international body claims it provides the most complete and objective science assessment in the world on the subject of climate change‘...four years ago.” Sen. James Inhofe, (R. Okla.)
The good...
"I want the people of America to be able to work less for the government and more for themselves. I want them to have the rewards of their own industry. This is the chief meaning of freedom.”--President Calvin Coolidge (1872-1933)
The bad...
“The idea that a bloated federal government having more sway over health care will render us better outcomes at less cost for patients with cancer, heart disease and other illnesses is headshakingly preposterous.”--Steve Forbes, Forbes magazine
The wacky...
“They must be prepping him for a Cabinet spot! A federal tax lien for nearly $80,000 has been filed against Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.”--Instapundit blog
Column: Nothing sacrosanct about science
Having spent a working career writing about and editing and publicizing the results of scientific inquiry, I’d guess those new revelations of monkeyshines among the world’s most eminent climate scientists come as a shock to many.
Blame the unwitting use of emails that have exposed their candid and damning contrivances to bolster their supposedly sacrosanct findings about the extent of global warming.
Here, I must confess smug satisfaction. Just as I never thought years ago that the world was in danger of getting colder--a popular scientific concern in the 1970s--I also have doubted the feared consequences of the reported warming. And even if the “consensus” among scientists proves correct, I can’t see how we mere mortals can do much at all to alter global climate anyhow.
Fiddling with the scientific data, of course, is nothing new. My innocent faith in objectivity of all scientific research was shattered long ago when talking with sponsors of a golf-course weed treatment at Purdue University. A competitor naturally got the highest scores in test plots, of course, because it financially supported the project the most, they laughed, as if that were par for the course in such matters.
Much later, in managing the reporting of federal economic research for USDA, I encountered political and effective resistance to widely publishing results of a sound study of ours that showed that producing fuel ethanol from corn would cost more than it was worth. At least, nobody tried to jimmy the findings, as has apparently happened among those elite climate scientists now, as their emails disclose.
Sample: “...One of the alleged emails has Kevin Trenberth of the U.S. National Center on Climate Research saying...‘The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming, and it is a travesty that we can’t. The [government satellite radiation data] shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. . . ‘”-- from commentary by Dennis Avery, my long-time friend, Virginian and environmental economist.
The disclosed emails display scheming among the world’s leading climate scientists whose efforts receive quite generous funding from governments and universities we support with our taxes. Little wonder that Congress is hearing strident calls for investigations of “Climate Gate” while freedom of information lawsuits proliferate. Regardless, “The elite press treats skepticism about global warming as a mental defect..”--Jonah Goldberg.
Undaunted, we climate skeptics do have agendas. Mine is to help the controversies torpedo congressional passage of the cap and trade legislation that would raise our taxes and curtail major energy production so critical to bailing out our struggling economy.
Windmills and white-roofed houses respectively yield energy and deflect harmful sunrays, true. But such novelties are a drop in the bucket in trying to fuel our whole economy. Oil and coal must remain our mainstays for the foreseeable future
But might they warm the climate dangerously, melt the glaciers, eliminate polar bears and swamp low-lying coastal cities? Nah. So stop worrying and cool your jets.
I‘m OK, You’re OK. Enjoy the holidays and praise the Lord..
Ben Blankenship is an Aquia Harbour resident and career journalist. Reach him at info@staffordcountysun.com".
Quote of note...
“I discussed the ‘systematic and documented abuse of the scientific process by which an international body claims it provides the most complete and objective science assessment in the world on the subject of climate change‘...four years ago.” Sen. James Inhofe, (R. Okla.)
The good...
"I want the people of America to be able to work less for the government and more for themselves. I want them to have the rewards of their own industry. This is the chief meaning of freedom.”--President Calvin Coolidge (1872-1933)
The bad...
“The idea that a bloated federal government having more sway over health care will render us better outcomes at less cost for patients with cancer, heart disease and other illnesses is headshakingly preposterous.”--Steve Forbes, Forbes magazine
The wacky...
“They must be prepping him for a Cabinet spot! A federal tax lien for nearly $80,000 has been filed against Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.”--Instapundit blog
Column: Nothing sacrosanct about science
Having spent a working career writing about and editing and publicizing the results of scientific inquiry, I’d guess those new revelations of monkeyshines among the world’s most eminent climate scientists come as a shock to many.
Blame the unwitting use of emails that have exposed their candid and damning contrivances to bolster their supposedly sacrosanct findings about the extent of global warming.
Here, I must confess smug satisfaction. Just as I never thought years ago that the world was in danger of getting colder--a popular scientific concern in the 1970s--I also have doubted the feared consequences of the reported warming. And even if the “consensus” among scientists proves correct, I can’t see how we mere mortals can do much at all to alter global climate anyhow.
Fiddling with the scientific data, of course, is nothing new. My innocent faith in objectivity of all scientific research was shattered long ago when talking with sponsors of a golf-course weed treatment at Purdue University. A competitor naturally got the highest scores in test plots, of course, because it financially supported the project the most, they laughed, as if that were par for the course in such matters.
Much later, in managing the reporting of federal economic research for USDA, I encountered political and effective resistance to widely publishing results of a sound study of ours that showed that producing fuel ethanol from corn would cost more than it was worth. At least, nobody tried to jimmy the findings, as has apparently happened among those elite climate scientists now, as their emails disclose.
Sample: “...One of the alleged emails has Kevin Trenberth of the U.S. National Center on Climate Research saying...‘The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming, and it is a travesty that we can’t. The [government satellite radiation data] shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. . . ‘”-- from commentary by Dennis Avery, my long-time friend, Virginian and environmental economist.
The disclosed emails display scheming among the world’s leading climate scientists whose efforts receive quite generous funding from governments and universities we support with our taxes. Little wonder that Congress is hearing strident calls for investigations of “Climate Gate” while freedom of information lawsuits proliferate. Regardless, “The elite press treats skepticism about global warming as a mental defect..”--Jonah Goldberg.
Undaunted, we climate skeptics do have agendas. Mine is to help the controversies torpedo congressional passage of the cap and trade legislation that would raise our taxes and curtail major energy production so critical to bailing out our struggling economy.
Windmills and white-roofed houses respectively yield energy and deflect harmful sunrays, true. But such novelties are a drop in the bucket in trying to fuel our whole economy. Oil and coal must remain our mainstays for the foreseeable future
But might they warm the climate dangerously, melt the glaciers, eliminate polar bears and swamp low-lying coastal cities? Nah. So stop worrying and cool your jets.
I‘m OK, You’re OK. Enjoy the holidays and praise the Lord..
Ben Blankenship is an Aquia Harbour resident and career journalist. Reach him at info@staffordcountysun.com".
posted by Ben Blankenship at
11:41 AM
