"...We need to move towards transportation innovation, sustainable green technology, renewable resources, and energy independ. We do not need the dishonest, hyping Church of Partisan Warming Alarmists undermining our efforts.
Al Gore's widely disseminated guest editorial in the New York Times attempts to beat back the current critical offensive on the so-called climate change consensus, brought about by the Climategate scandal.
For the uninitiated, skeptic Christopher Booker has written a strong analysis of Climategate's consequences in The Telegraph. Booker’s piece, the perfect must-read counterpoint to Gore's article, is prescient.
Gore’s talking points, meanwhile, are reflexively tone deaf. He opens by shifting responsibility for Climategate from alarmists to skeptics, decrying “attacks on the science of global warming.”
Attacks? No, Al, this is legitimate fact-finding brought about by scientific misbehavior. Alarmists are asking for a worldwide lifestyle change costing trillions of dollars. Did they not expect questions?
Gore calls carbon dioxide – a naturally occurring trace gas that also happens to be essential to life – a “pollutant.” He undermines his points with this needless, histrionic distortion.
Worst, Gore’s piece ignores the paradigm-shifting implications of data suppression, peer review dodging, and evidence fudging by the IPCC and the East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) whose malpractice has not only turning global warming into a laughingstock but also – tragically – tarnished the whole scientific community.
I don’t buy the argument that these mistakes were isolated. The scientific community had years to peer review the infamously discredited “hockey stick” graph. Scientists usually cannot wait to correct each other. How embarrassing that it took a few hacked emails to reveal the graph’s fraudulence.
This indicates either widespread collusion or willful blindness -- and begs the question of the content of emails not hacked. Is there more, as yet unknown deceit?
Now that the head of the CRU publicly admits current “warming” trends might be part of historically normal vicissitudes independent of carbon dioxide, there is no such thing settled science on climate change.
Science’s legitimacy derives from the purported objectivity of its practitioners. Scientists are not supposed to have an agenda – other than seeking a measure of certainty from observation and analysis.
Laypeople can no longer trust scientists to police themselves through peer review. Cimategate reminds us that scientists are still human – still subject to the same behavior flaws as priests and politicians. The word ‘scientific’ no longer carries the same weight.
No one can ever again take for granted the objectivity of science, a sad development with widespread and potentially ominous cultural and socioecomic reverberations.
Gore and his alarmist true believers continue ignore this paradigm shift at their peril – and ours...
http://www.examiner.com/post-partis...ill-trust-al-gore-alarmist-climate-scientists
