New Scientist does a u-turn on cause of climate change
26 Sep 2010
I HAD TO SMILE at the editorial in New Scientist this week. They finally had to begrudgingly admit that "the latest findings show that the sun might be significant" with regards to changing climate and temperature. But the whole editorial tries to save face by declaring that, "Climate scientists were often uneasy about discussing it [the role of the sun], fearful that any concession would be misunderstood by the public and seen as an admission that climate sceptics were right." In other words, climate scientists don't tell us the truth [something we already know after Climategate] because they are worried that we, the general public, might jump to obvious and logical conclusions.
Human production of CO2 and other green house gases (including secondary production through our love of eating flesh) of course has some effect. But the question is whether it is the primary weather-changing effect that climate scientists have claimed that it is. The truth is that nobody really knows for sure. But what we do know for sure is that the "science" being put out in support of global warming caused almost exclusively by human greenhouse gas production is a lie — one that is being used politically to garner funding and increase government control.
Undoubtedly, New Scientist will eventually concede, sometime in the future, that the sun may be the primary cause of global warming, but that human reduction of CO2 is still important and so all those lies put put out by scientists, and all their omissions in data reporting, were a justifiable means to the end of helping to save the planet.
The problem with science is that it is "done" by humans, and humans are political animals. So science becomes political, especially where every penny of research funding is fought for. It is a serious conflict of interest when the outcome of scientific research dictates future funding, and this is exactly what is happening in the world of scientific climate study.