The London Sunday Telegraph carries an important article by Christopher Monckton intended to shred the predictions of the recent Stern Review Report on climate change. In reality, the article does much more, showing how bad science is responsible for much of the hysteria surrounding the issue of global warming and the belief that man is responsible for most, if not all of it. According to Monckton's numbers, increased solar activity could conceivably account for all observed warming over the past century. What's more, the UN undersetimates the natural greenhouse effect, overestimates average temperature changes, increases known physical constants, and uses flawed measures of ocean temperatures.
Monckton concludes that warming is likely to range from 0.1 to 1.4 degrees Celsius over the next hundred years, less than the UN's low-end assumption of 1.5 degrees Celsius. Why aren't these conclusions being widely published? This piece indicates specific, fundamental flaws in not only the Stern Report, but in all of the science underlying what is commonly called the "consensus view." If the numbers in his piece are correct (as I suspect they are), a reassessment of the science on global warming should occur. If the numbers are wrong, they should be refuted immediately. Yet it is more than likely that this piece, as well as research that supports the views of skeptics of global warming caused by human activity, will simply be ignored by major universities and government institutions, as well as the likes of the BBC, CNN, the AP, the New York Times, PBS, Reuters, and even media outlets with an interest in things scientific such as the Discovery Channel. This is the same way the established figures in the scientific community treated Intelligent Design, and there were negative consequences as a result.
Now, I don't want to equate global warming skepticisim with Intelligent Design where scientific merit is concerned. As far as I can tell, there is sufficient scientific evidence supporting skepticism about man-made global warming, while there is no scientific evidence whatever supporting Intelligent Design. However, both have gained traction because their claims were simply ignored or dismissed out of hand, as opposed to being challenged or refuted, though this has changed with regard to Intelligent Design, and Intelligent Design is no longer regarded as highly as it was a couple of years ago. If Monckton is wrong, and the data he cites are wrong, prove it. If he's right, and his data are right, make sure future research reflects this. The purpose of science is to determine the state of the natural world, not provide ammunition for a political cause. The Stern Report and the UN's global warming research are examples of science becoming the whore of politics, and the consequences are potentially devastating for both science and society at large.
