The Latest on Global Climate Change - A Triumph of Politics over Science?

     Most likely you are excited to see the latest draft of AR5 from the IPCC, The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which is an agency of the United Nations.  This is the fifth in a series of such reports.  The most fascinating part it is how it panders to certain politicians in its summary while it raises great doubt with the underlying scientific data.  The recent draft states that science is now 95% certain that growing carbon dioxide emissions from human activity is causing, and will continue to cause, unprecedented global warming and alarming sea level rise.  Meanwhile, the data within the report confirms that global temperatures have failed to rise for the last fifteen years or so.  It also maintains, as the media has reported, that global carbon dioxide levels are now the highest since the Paleolithic Period.  Once again, we have a remarkable inconsistency.  We know that the Paleolithic was characterized by incredible global cooling, we even call this period the ice age.

     The draft struggles to explain the nearly complete halt in global warming given the soaring CO2 levels.  All the predictions we have seen insist that the rate of global warming will increase.  We do remember the now famous "hockey stick" graph. That graph is still in use by climate change believers despite its failure to materialize.  To those who say, "The debate is over," we respond by asking for peer-reviewed studies concluding that human activity is causing global warming.  To date, there have been none, ZERO.  To those who say "Climate scientists agree," I point out that the number who do agree has now fallen to 39%.

      Now the draft goes back to the individual countries for approval.  This is not exactly what "peer-reviewed" means.  The 119 scientists who drafted the study now step back to allow the politicians back home to further edit and finally approve the study.  The science is over, now the politics begin.  It will be very interesting to see how the report changes as this year passes.  Our politicians continue to argue that this process is all science.  If it is about science, why are the politicians spending a year editing it?

       The point, therefore, is that science has always needed funding to operate and that forces scientists to court politicians in order to work and even become politically involved.  I maintain that this is neither good nor bad, it just is.  Knowing this does require that we respect our own abilities and do enough of our own research to arrive at our own decisions.