posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 09:51 PM
In the wake of the leaked emails from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, there have been a great number of threads about not
just the information in the leaks, but also about the proposed phenomenon of Anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change itself. Time and again, I
have read threads that have dissolved into partisan bickering and accusations, many of which are groundless, most of which are completely
The science of the theory is simple; raw temperature data is hard data, and the influence of environmental factors are a measurable phenomenon. The
first step in getting the theory off of the ground is comparing this data and looking for correlations and changes. Don't argue about who funded the
research; raw data for this sort of thing comes from the same source, no matter who funded it. Get the raw data for yourself. Find your own sources;
compare sources to verify their data. Read about the locations of key measuring stations. Compare the data sets yourself. Corrupt scientists and
industry funding become irrelevant.
Step two of the theory regards the effects of various greenhouse gases. Sadly, most of the highly touted "research" here involves computer models.
Computer models are not science; they are useful tools to test theories, to see if you should continue looking for real-world data that reflects your
model, but they are not science. Computer models spit out data based on the data entered into them and how they are programmed to process that data.
Seeing as how we do not understand every aspect of our planet from top to bottom, no model can be considered accurate. We can theorize effects of
various elements on the atmosphere, but, in doing so, we cannot possibly achieve a calculation that can encompass all effects and interactions, at
At this point, there is little left to turn to. Models from those who support a particular point of view, whatever it may be, give the result they
desire, because they enter the information they desire. Those of us with the skills and know-how can research the composition of the atmosphere, and
with these, make our own calculations about the effects of various environmental pressures on our climate, but until we understand how all these known
pressures interact (which science currently does not,) and until we know that there are no other environmental pressure that we DON'T know about, we
cannot make compete calculations, relevant models, or even conduct experiments to support EITHER perspective on the matter.
In the end, all the rhetoric, the accusations, the pleas to save the earth, to save the animals, to save us from taxes, whatever the pleas might be,
come back to the same core data set. Does the raw data support a warming trend that is exceptional in the history of the earth? Are there differences
between our time period and other times in the planet's history that we know were deviations from the norm?
I think, personally, that it is telling that the UEA threw out the raw data after making "adjustments," and that they corresponded concerning means
to manipulate the data sets they did use. In science, raw data is king, because raw data is the bare facts, laid before us to understand, if we can
find the means to do. Their treatment of raw data says it all.
So next time you engage in a discussion of this subject, think about the facts, the raw data. Analyze it and know it for your own sake, and if you
must argue, you can then argue the facts, and not the rhetoric.