In Their Opinion
The conclusions reached by the two enquiries out of the University of East Anglia appear to have been reached before the selected materials were even researched; that the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) research and documented conclusions were beyond reproach. Oh, a slight nod at the kind of human fallibility that were are all inclined toward; ordinary person on the street and scientist alike.Errors were made but they were slight, and as such all the climate change findings in support of their Global Warming theories were sound. A "...small group of dedicated if slightly disorganized researchers" was basically responsible for giving the illusion of casting unwarranted doubt on the conclusions reached that resulted in the report that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate accepted.
Well, hardly anyone wants to seriously argue that climate change isn't occurring. Whether it constitutes global warming or a little bit of an ice-up on a scale that occurs regularly within the Earth's cyclical atmospheric conditions is hardly a settled science. Perhaps there is little doubt that industrialization has aided and abetted the change, but by how much? And does anyone really know through searching the fossil record how much change is natural and cyclical?
This is mostly theory based on observation and on mathematical computer modelling whose results are often confusing and also not quite completely reflective of what is actually happening, when the right data isn't inputted, as does happen. We're not yet certain whether we're copying the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age. We are certain that we have been experiencing some extraordinarily inclement, tempestuous, catastrophic weather conditions.
But we're certainly experiencing a change of some kind, puzzling and unheralded in recent memory, and have been for a little while. Still, some of the statistics just don't reflect reality, and they're the numbers that were fed into the computer system. It doesn't much help that a cloud of suspicion hangs over some of the movers and shakers in the Global Warming club with respect to net material gain.
Al Gore certainly presents as one. He has profited handsomely from both his climate film and his alternate energy investments. As has Lord Oxburgh, considered another anti-carbon profiteer raking in the bucks from carbon trading schemes, to carbon capture and storage; from businesses set up for huge wind farms and lobby groups all of which represent industries setting themselves up for huge future profits.
As chair of the university's enquiry, and a leading green-energy entrepreneur who stands to gain much by the world coming around to alternate energy sources and carbon dioxide clean-up strategies, there is ample reason for a whiff of suspicion to be raised about the trustworthiness of someone like Lord Oxburgh of Liverpool.
Still, it's nice to know that the results of the enquiry were that the scientists involved at the CRU at East Anglia University were, to a man, honourable. They were simply poor keepers-of-records, and in the end, nothing was proven to have gone amiss. Glad that's all cleared up.
Labels: Economy, Environment, Nature
posted by Pieface @ Sunday, April 18, 2010
<< Home