Saturday, September 15, 2007

Scientists admit lying to keep funding

Via Climate Skeptic (god, I hate the US spelling of "sceptic": it just looks ugly), there is a very interesting article over at Junk Science, on the politicisation of science.
The story begins in 2000 when the University of Ottawa’s Jan Veizer and others published a study in Nature reporting that their reconstruction (via fossil shells) of tropical sea surface temperatures for that last 550 million years only made sense if carbon dioxide were not the principle driver of climate variability on a geological timescale.

Veizer, along with Nir Shaviv of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, followed up the 2000 paper with a July 2003 study in GSA Today (a journal published by the Geological Society of America). That report said at least 66 percent and perhaps as much as 75 percent of the variance in the Earth’s temperature over the past 500 million years may be due to cosmic ray flux.

Obviously, none of this was good for ever-fragile climate hysteria and the alarmists struck back with the new Nature study, which, surprisingly, includes Veizer as a co-author.

The new study that uses a different method to reconstruct sea surface temperatures from fossil shells claims to report results that "are consistent with the proposal that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations drive or amplify increased global temperatures."

So, is Veizer debunking his own report? Well, not precisely...
First, Veizer reluctantly told me the "text" of the Nature study, that is, the above-quoted conclusion, represented a "compromise" between the study’s disagreeing authors where Veizer’s side apparently did all the compromising for reasons that had little to do with the science.

While Veizer didn’t want to elaborate on the politics of the Nature study, he told me "not to take the tone of the paper as the definitive last word."

Veizer went on to say that the new Nature study has not refuted his original study. The new study, in fact, appears to have confirmed the original study with respect to its most important point that the historical sea surface temperature data indicate atmospheric carbon dioxide does not drive global temperature.

Even if the new study proves to be valid, Veizer says, at most it reduces the statistical variation in sea surface temperature estimated by the original study. This correction, however, has little bearing on the nature of the carbon dioxide-temperature relationship.

Veizer says the basic pattern of reconstructed sea surface temperatures in both his original study and the new study remain inconsistent with notion that atmospheric carbon dioxide drives global temperatures.

If it turns out that the new study reconstructs historical sea surface temperatures more accurately than his original study, Veizer added, it would only represent an increase in the impact of cosmic rays on the climate that was reported in the 2003 GSA Today paper.

There’s another point worth spotlighting in all this. It seems that the politics of global warming including the multibillion-dollar-funding of global warming research resulted in the publication in a prestigious science journal of a "compromise" conclusion that is not supported by the study’s own data.

In other words, the conclusion that has been published is, in fact, a lie.
"Science should never be adjusted to fit policy," was the reprimand the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency received from its own Science Advisory Board in 1992. But that’s exactly what seems to be happening to climate science. It’s a situation reminiscent of George Orwell’s "1984," in which Ministry of Truth worker Winston Smith wonders if the State could get away with declaring that "two and two made five."

Who’s wondering now? A recent series of reports from the Science and Public Policy Institute spotlights problems with the peer review process of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and efforts to create the illusion of scientific consensus on global warming.

The inconvenient truth is that we are being lied to for political reasons. And the scientists are being made to lie by the fact that the politicians control their money.

As Climate Skeptic points out, the scientists who found the 800 year lag—which shows that temperatures rise roughly 800 years before CO2 rises, indicating that CO2 is not the main driver of warming—also felt compelled to add an addendum to the bottom of their paper.
Anyway, the scientists who discovered this 800-year lag felt compelled to add this line to their publication. They said the team
... is still in full agreement with the idea that CO2 plays, through its greenhouse effect, a key role in amplifying the initial orbital forcing...

You can just see the fear. Please, don't take our climate funding away. We didn't mean to find this evidence. We're sorry. We're still believers. Another example here.

Shall I say it again? We are being lied to by cunt politicians with dreams of totalitarian control over their peoples, and by corrupt scientists chasing the funding from said politico sacks of shit.

AGW = bullshit.

4 comments:

knirirr said...

And the scientists are being made to lie by the fact that the politicians control their money.

What about if Microsoft controls the money? Do you think that equally corrupting?

Dr. James P. Holdren said...

That's s maybe about the scientific funding but it doesn't alter the basic premise, as I've jsut been posting about myself. The thing is happening, the evidence is there and it's partly down to human agency.

Faye said...

I didnt know we were supposed to spell it "sceptic". O_o Unless the rules have changed! Man I feel so out of the loop. :(

Anonymous said...

Adjusting a study's conclusion to fit preconceived notions is deplorable.

But where's the incentive in this case? Um, don't they get paid no matter which conclusion the research reaches? I thought it was the corporate studies where the influence of the funding was clear.

Frankly, it's a huge pain in the ass for everyone if AGW is true. So what's the payoff for lying in favor of AGW? I don't get it.