Home > Uncategorized > 1,700 religious zealots sign a letter saying that science of “global warming” is extensive.

1,700 religious zealots sign a letter saying that science of “global warming” is extensive.

Today 1,700 religious zealots climate scientists signed a letter stating that Climategate doesn’t negate the overwhelming evidence on global warming. Here is the text of the letter:

“We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. The evidence and the science are deep and extensive. They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity. That research has been subject to peer review and publication, providing traceability of the evidence and support for the scientific method. The science of climate change draws on fundamental research from an increasing number of disciplines, many of which are represented here. As professional scientists, from students to senior professors, we uphold the findings of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which concludes that “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal” and that “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”.”

Find the letter and signatories here.

Of course, all of the scientists involved signed it willingly, no? Not so fast:

One scientist said that he felt under pressure to sign the circular or risk losing work. The Met Office admitted that many of the signatories did not work on climate change.

John Hirst, the Met Office chief executive, and Julia Slingo, its chief scientist, wrote to 70 colleagues on Sunday asking them to sign “to defend our profession against this unprecedented attack to discredit us and the science of climate change”. They asked them to forward the petition to colleagues to generate support “for a simple statement that we . . . have the utmost confidence in the science base that underpins the evidence for global warming”.”

Once again, if the evidence is overwhelming, then a CEO of a company wouldn’t have to nudge scientists to sign something they believe in, right? I mean, “the evidence and the science are deep and extensive” and all that jazz, right?

It’s also ironic that many of the signatories to the letter work for the same employers. If that is not groupthink then I don’t know what is. In fact, the idea that a bunch of scientists signing a letter to affirm the science of global warming is a bit unseemly. James Taranto at the WSJ puts it thusly:

“The concept of scientists–or journalists, or artists–signing a petition is ludicrous. The idea is that they are lending their authority to whatever cause the petition represents–but in fact they are undermining that authority, which is based on the presumption that they think for themselves.

The problem with the petition as a form is also a problem with the Met Office petition’s substance. The purpose of the petition is to shore up scientists’ authority by vouching for their integrity. But signing a loyalty oath under pressure from the government is itself a corrupt act. Anyone who signs this petition thereby raises doubts about his own integrity. And once again, the question arises: Why should any layman regard global warmism as credible when the “consensus” rests on political machinations, statistical tricks and efforts to suppress alternative hypotheses?

To be sure, Joseph McCarthy was right about communism even though the ways he combated it were wrong and counterproductive. But that’s all the more reason that honest scientists who view global warmism as credible–if such creatures exist–should rise up against these McCarthyite tactics.”

If these scientists really believed in their work, then their work would speak for itself. As Mr. Taranto mentioned, the act of signing a letter only serves to raise suspicion that their work is not able to withstand scrutiny.

Advertisements
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: