Although I am an engineer I nevertheless consider myself a layperson where climatology is concerned. I have taken an interest in so called anthropogenic global warming initially because it sounded so serious but now because the quality of the science behind it is so bad. I also follow the Blogs by Steve McIntyre on the Climate Audit site which I find quite revealing.
Ref: http://www.climateaudit.org/
However, what I find most worrying is not that the science is weak as is often the case in a young scientific field, but that this weak science is promoted with one-sided views often presented by the media and the IPCC in a way that misleads the significance of a 'consensus view' as being an indisputable scientific fact. To me this makes the main stream reporting of global warming little more than propaganda.
This is increasingly the case since Steve McIntyre has consistently shown the main thrust of the evidence behind the man-made global warming scare story, the 'hockey stick', is blatantly wrong and has been manipulated by the IPCC scientists and politicians in such a significant way as to amount to fraud in my view.
Ref: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1579
Now given the insignificance of the 0.3 - 0.6 degC temperature rise over the last 100 years it does not take a scientist to realise that this increase could well be largely to do with the previously discussed manipulation, which then should raise serious questions about the scientific politics of global warming. The fact this fraudulent use of science could be masking what some data shows that we are already in a downturn in the natural cycle of climate change is a real story.
Instead what we get is as we see with regards to the recent Bali Kyoto conference the UK and most of the world media failed to report the dissenting views of some very prominent scientists. I also understand during the conference Lord Monckton made a speech and that over 100 scientists submitted an open letter where they condemned the over-hyped anthropogenic global warming view, yet none of this was reported.
My view as discussed was actually supported by Dr Vincent Gray at the Bali conference when he said:
"All the science of the IPCC is unsound. I have come to this conclusion after a very long time. If you examine every single proposition of the IPCC thoroughly, you find that the science somewhere fails, it fails not only from the data, but it fails in the statistics, and the mathematics, a dangerous time for science".
Ref: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/925
Why was this not reported in the UK? Does anyone know why? I can but speculate and I think the clue comes in the form of the Turner Foundation.
However, Dr Gray's concern equally applies to the news media also, if the truth disappears from news reports then the news reported, truthful or otherwise, is of no value. Therefore this is not only a dangerous time for science it is also a dangerous time for journalism too.
I am sure you as a science writers you must be equally appalled by this bias and wondered if more could be done to remove such bias and propaganda in future reporting?
Other issues of a political not necessarily scientific concern that I have noticed are arguments often by pro-AGW that attempt to smear scientists, politicians and journalists sceptics as having ties to oil companies and being paid $10,000's.
See: Exxon secrets
This disgraceful behaviour goes on unimpeded but no one picks up on the hypocrisy that GreenPeace exposes themselves to. For instance that the people who they attempt to smear have more to lose than gain in being as corrupt as GreenPeace try to make them out to be in accepting such a measly sum in return for making their work benefit oil companies, and they ignore the fact that this work would have to be subject to peer reviews in any case. Yet GreenPeace and the UN make $100's of millions from perpetuating these global warming scare stories.
See:
http://www.activistcash.com/organization_financials.cfm/oid/131
http://www.un.org/unfip/YAWingingitWorldPeace.htm
http://www.activistcash.com/foundation.cfm?did=99
This also extends to the EU who use public money to fund this time Friends of the Earth to lobby MEP's as Steve Cox investigation reveals:
See:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7127182.stm
eu pays to be lobbied on global warming
I would suggest there is more political corruption going on than scientific corruption - which should be the real story being splashed across the headlines.
Bookmark this story with del.icio.us
Digg this story
Furl this item
Have you Reddit?