I have conducted a fair amount of reading about the various aspects of global warming. Enough so that saying it is a mere interest does not describe it properly; passion or fetish might be more appropriate terms. Not out of a desire to be an expert, but out of the desire to prove that corn derived ethanol is a bad idea and is equally bad for the environment and us, and also to prove that the ultra-left has high-jacked what should be a debate on how pollution effects the environment and what, if anything, can or should be done to stop it. The thing has taken of a life of it's own however, and the more I read the more I see the same assumptions based upon the same theories, but no data to support it.
Despite claims to the contrary, the science is far from settled, shockingly so. Best estimates are that human activity account for 40 to 60 percent of the rise in temperature. With a range that wide the scientific debate is far from over. And even then scientists cannot agree on which human activities, such as green house gas emissions, deforestation, urbanization, or air pollution have the greatest effect or how much synergy exists between them.
Why is this? Because the research has not been done.
When one reads the various articles and "research" and then looks at the footnotes and bibliographies one realizes that most of the printed matter relies not on original research, but rather rehashes old theories, some of which has not been critically reviewed. In the scientific world research is conducted and published in a scientific journal where other scientists examine the data, looking to support the theory or find flaws in it. Often other scientists use another's theory as a steppingstone for additional research using a revised theory, or they just try to duplicate it to prove it faulty.
There is a media explosion is in response to the public's demand for information. What used to be published in scientific journals is being published in science hobby magazines. Besides the author's fee the researcher also gets to propose a theory, with little or no supporting data, without the trouble of having to do hard research or subject their work to review. That has led to a number of sources that publish what on the surface appears to be scientific data but is really just an article for a magazine written by someone who refers on another's work. There is no research involved, which is why it is in a science hobby periodical and not a scientific journal.
"An Inconvenient Truth" relies on faulty data and unproven science, and yet it is shown in schools as an educational documentary, when in fact it is a piece of emotional propaganda unable to support its theories. The left has even instituted a practice of defying those they brand as "deniers" to prove they are wrong, rather that providing the documentation to prove they are correct. That is not science; that is propaganda. Science is about facts and data, not offset credits and tax-free foundations. And it is certainly not about emotional blackmail. The environmental extremists and some opportunists have hijacked the issue and have deemed the debate over when in fact the true scientific debate never began.
******
One important thing to add. An entry in a scientific journal has to be factually sound and is subject to peer review. An article for Newsweek, Time magazine or the science hobby magazine is not the same as research as there is no critical review and frequently the only research cited is conducted by others, making it more of an untested theory than scientific data.
No comments:
Post a Comment