Seth Borenstein writing at the Associated Press from Washington, D.C. (www.ap.org) reports a Pew poll taken from the general public and American Association for the Advancement of Science members. As Mr. Borenstein sees it, “The American public and U. S. scientists are light years apart on science issues…a 20 percentage point or higher gap” in 8 of 13. Naturally, the issue of manmade global warming came up; although many of us believe this is less about science and more a political agenda.
Not surprising, 87 percent of scientists polled believe the theory, but 50 percent of public respondents don’t buy it—surprising because government bureaucrats, politicians and many in the press perpetuate the myth that this is “settled science.” Science is never “settled,” nor does it work by “consensus.” And 13 percent of scientists who are skeptics or “deniers” are proof—the whole group doesn’t agree. Furthermore, we don’t know how many people in the poll were climate scientists. Clearly, a biologist or a political scientist would have less weight on this subject than would a climatologist.
Also, half the public doesn’t agree. Obviously, large numbers of people don’t accept the theory that we are causing the Earth to warm catastrophically, despite years of intense government and press propaganda promoting it. But why all these scientists?
There are reasons why so many scientists believe the manmade climate theory. They largely have to do with the source of their livelihood and careers.
Dr. Roy Spencer, a lead scientist of a U. S. science team for Earth satellite scanning, has some ideas from his experience. Dr. Spencer has tried to show that natural factors are a science-based cause for warming and cooling cycles on Earth. His theory (and that of colleagues) has been rejected by what he calls, “The Keepers of All Climate Knowledge” within the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (note this in not called the “Climate Science Panel…”).
These people, writes Dr. Spencer in his book, ‘The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists,’ “have erected a nearly impenetrable barrier to any new science” that doesn’t support the “paradigm of anthropogenic global warming.”
Two recent papers (2007-08) by Spencer and colleagues, offering a credible naturalistic theory to explain climate change, were ignored by other scientists and the press. Thus, “The public is left with a biased impression of the state of the science, because they have never heard of important work that has indeed been published.” (Based on the Pew poll 50 percent of the public is maybe wiser about this issue than 87 percent of scientists.)
Spencer doesn’t believe in a widespread conspiracy among scientists who support the IPCC agenda, rather lack of “due diligence” is at play. Also he knows that some of them favor “getting off fossil fuels” which likely influences their work. He does, however, say that there is a conspiracy among some politicians and IPCC members to regulate “greenhouse gases” regardless of scientific evidence.
Everyone in the business of climate research has biases on the subject, says Spencer (most scientists are human). And it starts with research funding from Congress (follow the money)—government-funded research is not impartial.
To get the money first a problem has to be created to convince politicians. Then, the careers of federal NASA, NOAA, NSF and DOE managers depend on the continuous flow of research dollars. As a former federal manager of research programs working in Washington, D.C., I know how this works. Spencer describes the process:
“As research programs are built and careers established, an entrenched scientific constituency develops. Scientists have to support their families, and the older we get the more difficult it is to change fields of research.
“Then there are the huge political implications of mankind being in control of the climate system. Political power derives mostly from control over the public purse, so the global warming issue is perfect for those whose careers depend on deciding how our tax dollars should be spent.
“There is also the arranged marriage between politics and science, something that would not have come about naturally. The IPCC was formed over twenty years ago largely for political reasons: to build the scientific case that mankind causes global warming, and thus the policy case for regulating carbon dioxide emissions. Because almost all options for tackling global warming involve more government control over society, a political bias ends up coloring the IPCC leadership’s message in a way that minimizes scientific uncertainties and maximizes public alarm.”
This corruption of climate science, sadly, has led us not able to trust many of those engaged in this field—that has evolved in a crony relationship with government.