Global Warming

The facade of the completely objective scientist who has no innate bias can officially be laid to rest. Horror stories accounting the blatant rejection of research reports headed by scientists who go against the orthodoxy of the established order are too numerous to simply turn a blind eye towards. Such rejection of competing research that might undermine the dogmatic beliefs of some is the antithesis of credible scientific work, and unfortunately no field is more culpable of such ideological abuse than scientists who purport to study global climatic change.

The issue of global warming has become increasingly politicized, and, in turn, polarized many scientific communities, as well as the general populace. This can be demonstrated in Al Gore’s first shot at cinematic stardom, adeptly titled “An Inconvenient Truth,” which purported to expose the many ills associated with global warming, and put the blame squarely on human consumption and economic advancement.

What makes global warming inherently a political campaign is that the science behind these supposed ‘discoveries’ is grossly suspect. The National Academy of Sciences proclaims that global temperatures have risen by one degree Fahrenheit over the last century, and that such escalations will have damning ramifications for mankind as well as the ecosystem.

However, one must take into account the methodological implications associated with trying to accurately gauge global temperature change.

How, with all honesty, can some scientists purport that they have a completely firm grasp on climate change even though the data in most cases is scarce, in addition to their methods not being uniform? Furthermore, climatology has only been in existence since the late 1890s, with such readings from that era being susceptible to human error and archaic technology. It is not too difficult to imagine a data collector standing in the middle of the field with an old mercury thermometer trying to tell if the air temperature is 56 or 57, or maybe it’s 58? The prospect for grotesque error is inexorably there.

The limited and potentially flawed data sets would have anyone who views information critically raise their eyebrow over such findings. Moreover, great technological advancements such as weather satellites and other sophisticated machinery that can accurately manage complex temperature variations have only been in existence, at the earliest, since the 1970s. This gives one about 35 years of reliable data to forecast projections thousands of years into the past and future.

What is even more disheartening is that scientists that try to let the evidence guide them and staunchly believe, as a first principle, that a tenet of good science is the falsification of theories, are brushed aside. Scientists who theorize that global climate change is cyclical, or that the temperature changes which global warming alarmists disseminate are too negligible to be conclusive have a difficult time finding a substantial audience.

It is a shame, because maybe their voices of reason can curb the unmitigated industrial regulation that the Kyoto Protocol puts into effect in Europe, crippling industry and economic vitality in its wake. A balanced perspective on global warming is very much needed. The fate of the climatology community rests upon it.