Can the reputation of climate scientists be repaired?
E. Thomas McClanahanBy E. Thomas McClanahan, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist
It’s an open question. It’s so bad that this article compares the challenge facing climate science to that facing the Catholic Church.
Even if the claims of misconduct and incompetence are eventually proven to be largely untrue, or confined to a few bad apples, mud sticks. The perceived wrongdoings of a few have raised doubts about the many. The response of most climate scientists has been to cross their fingers and hope for the best. Many no doubt hope that the independent inquiries … will draw a line under their problems. These will help, but they are unlikely to undo the damage caused by months of hostile news reports and attacks by critics.
Those independent inquiries will have to sort out precisely where climate research ran off the rails. After all, the “hostile news reports and attacks” have had a basis.
The problems were crystallized by admissions made by Phil Jones, former head of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit.
He has admitted that the earth has shown no “statistically significant” warming for 15 years and that the Medieval warm period could have been warmer than today, which undermines the theory of man-caused global warming.
Also, data for the infamous “hockey stick” graph apparently can’t be found, so it can’t be checked by other scientists.
Those are three telling blows to climate science, which shows why it is too feeble a reed on which to justify de facto tax increases aimed at reducing CO2.
Google+
Share
Tweet
Comments