Global warming theory doesn't hold water
Sara Gregory
Issue date: 12/4/09 Section: Opinion
Global warming, global shmarming. That's a rash statement, but according to current research it may in fact be true. As a die-hard environmentalist, I grew up with the paranoia of global warming and like most, took it for granted.
Ever since high school I have been warned of the dangers of fossil fuels and the lack of renewable energy resources. Documentaries such as "An Inconvenient Truth" and "Who Killed the Electric Car" inspired a valid paranoia at the time.
A recent article in the Chicago-based newspaper The Beacon reveals that several hackers have stolen environmental research and leaked the results to the Internet.
"The University of East Anglia in eastern England, said in a statement Saturday that the hackers had entered the server and stolen data at its climate research unit, a leading global research center on climate change."
The disturbing thing in this story is not that hackers stole information, but what the information that was stolen stated. Climate change skeptics are claiming that this research debunks our fear of global warming.
In one leaked e-mail, the research director Phil Jones writes to colleagues about climate changes over the last millennium.
Jones points out research supporting that global temperatures are on the decline, contrary to popular belief, and alludes to a scientific technique that should be used to "hide this decline in temperature."
This information comes just weeks before the U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen, where "192 nations will seek to reach a binding treaty to reduce the emission of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases worldwide."
I won't ditch my tree-hugging views just yet, but the bottom line is that there appears to be no need for current panic. We're actually doing better than we have been led to believe.
Is Jones' cover up justified? I mean, lying for a good cause should be better than just lying for the sake of lying, right?
Wrong. Figures don't lie, but liars figure, and when scientists use numbers to say what they use them to say, it's a lie either way. I wag my finger at Jones and his supporting researchers for blinding the globe with unneeded paranoia.
Ever since high school I have been warned of the dangers of fossil fuels and the lack of renewable energy resources. Documentaries such as "An Inconvenient Truth" and "Who Killed the Electric Car" inspired a valid paranoia at the time.
A recent article in the Chicago-based newspaper The Beacon reveals that several hackers have stolen environmental research and leaked the results to the Internet.
"The University of East Anglia in eastern England, said in a statement Saturday that the hackers had entered the server and stolen data at its climate research unit, a leading global research center on climate change."
The disturbing thing in this story is not that hackers stole information, but what the information that was stolen stated. Climate change skeptics are claiming that this research debunks our fear of global warming.
In one leaked e-mail, the research director Phil Jones writes to colleagues about climate changes over the last millennium.
Jones points out research supporting that global temperatures are on the decline, contrary to popular belief, and alludes to a scientific technique that should be used to "hide this decline in temperature."
This information comes just weeks before the U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen, where "192 nations will seek to reach a binding treaty to reduce the emission of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases worldwide."
I won't ditch my tree-hugging views just yet, but the bottom line is that there appears to be no need for current panic. We're actually doing better than we have been led to believe.
Is Jones' cover up justified? I mean, lying for a good cause should be better than just lying for the sake of lying, right?
Wrong. Figures don't lie, but liars figure, and when scientists use numbers to say what they use them to say, it's a lie either way. I wag my finger at Jones and his supporting researchers for blinding the globe with unneeded paranoia.
Viewing Comments 1 - 6 of 6
Mark
posted 12/04/09 @ 3:32 PM CST
A sign of intellectual honesty is to admit that one's views might be incorrect when presented with new information. As Keynes said. "When the facts change, I change my mind. (Continued…)
Pops
posted 12/04/09 @ 3:35 PM CST
TUT TUT! Censorship? Come on, post my earlier comment.
Fred
posted 12/04/09 @ 10:38 PM CST
"Is Jones' cover up justified? I mean, lying for a good cause should be better than just lying for the sake of lying, right?"
Nice opinion piece. But, (1) who in heck lies just for the sake of lying? and (2) who gets to decide which causes are good causes and which causes are bad?
Pops
posted 12/05/09 @ 4:02 PM CST
Fred: "...who in heck lies just for the sake of lying?"
My goodness, Fred, what world do you live in?
Come on over to the dark side; the real world. (Continued…)
Fred
posted 12/05/09 @ 11:31 PM CST
Well, sure, Pops, I take your point, but you're also making my point: I wasn't referring to "habitual liars", but those who lie for the sheer pleasure of lying, which didn't make sense to me (usually habitual liars are into self-aggrandizement). (Continued…)
science geek
posted 12/06/09 @ 9:29 PM CST
No offense intended here folks, but to think that any process involving human beings can be devoid of bias is very naive. That is why any scientific process worth its salt - especially one with as much impact as global climate change analysis - is designed to yield credible results in spite of any participant bias. (Continued…)
Post a Comment