Now that our illustrious government has finally managed to pass, at great cost to itself and the Maori party, a badly designed Emissions Trading Scheme – that absolutely everyone else hates – it is time to wonder why anyone bothered. This expensive waste of political capital will achieve precisely nothing for our environment nor prevent Global warming (should it actually exist). It is unlikely to serve any useful purpose at the Copenhagen talks, which are already likely to be derailed by the splendid e-mail debacle that is gradually gathering momentum.
That particular scandal should have provided a good excuse to step away from an ETS, but that opportunity is also now lost.
It may be that Dr Smith simply does not realise the import of those emails, choosing to soothe himself with the bland murmurings of the Global Warmongers at NIWA. Even the right-wing blogs, rightly scandalized by the fudging of facts and the selective nature of data provided, have not appreciated the true enormity of this scandal.
Climate science is not amenable to empirical proof. When Climate scientists say the ” science is settled”, what they mean is “the majority of climate scientists think this is true” . There is nothing wrong with this, per se. Many scientific disciplines run this way. This system works really well for natural sciences that are not amenable to experimentation. Unfortunately, this way of scientific theorising requires quite a lot of integrity from its scientists. It requires full access to all facts, so that these observed facts can be checked against the theory. What these e-mails tell us is that prominent figures have been selecting facts that accord with their theory and suppressing others that do not. This means that the current consensus of climate science has been developed on a highly selected set of data. It means that the consensus is not worth the paper it is written on.
Note that in a scientific discipline where experimentation is possible, over-selection and suppression of data will be quickly picked up by others repeating the experiment. In climate science it simply leads everyone to false conclusions.
If I was a climatologist, I would be very angry at this point, because it means the past decade of my work would now have to be reinterpreted against a different set of data. The conclusions that I have drawn from my research would all have to be re-examined. Depending on the extent of data massaging and the extent of suppression of contrary data, climate science may have been set back for years.
And yet the rather odd Dr. Smith is happy to ram through a bill that is likely to be nothing more than an exercise in economic vandalism…