Though climate change alarmists claim that that “the science is settled” no longer holds water the arguments rage on. If anything they are getting more heated as the climate science lobby, knocked from the moral high grounds show their true colours. But more and more evidence is showing the climate change science was never settled and the global warming Armageddonists had built their whole case on very flimsy evidence.
Last week The Russell Report into the so called Climategate scandal reported that no evidence of dishonesty by scientific researchers at the University Of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) had been found.
The Global Warming Armageddonists immediately claimed this exonerated the CRU scientists and proved the scientific case for Anthropogenic Global Warming.
As Little Nicky has always said scientists are an excitable, emotional lot, terms like self-discipline, detachment and objectivity do not appear in their lexicon (unless they are talking about their critics of course. If it’s wearing a science label that proves it’s right is the first item of faith in the creed followed by The Church Of Scienceology zealots who contribute to “progressive left” control freak blogs and the science pages of The Guardian.
So are there any objective reviews of the climate change research in question? There are lots actually. Here are links to a few:
click here to find a link to the Max Plank Institute’s report This is the actual press release from the Max Planck Institute that was prinited in Science magazine on July 6
And here is an editorial from New Scientist that appeared under the title
Without Candour We Can’t Trust Climate Science.. This report shows none of the three whitewash inquiries published so far have been required to offer an opinion on the quality of the scientific work.
Then there was the news story about the United States Department of Energy withdrawing funding from the CRU
And finally a story of how new research recently published into the way carbon behaves in the atmosphere throws doubt on the reliability of the mathematical modelling techniques used by the CRU.
If you want a more entertaining take on climate science you can read all this stuff summarized with humourous asides at The Daily Stirrer:
Climate Change Crooks and Liars
Max Planck Refudiates AGW Science