Can we dispel this assumption once and for all that scientists are all full of honesty, sweetness and light? Scientists are human beings who want to be right. It's a bit like doctors who declare a hypocritic oath to preserve life but whilst the majority will abide by that ethos many have proven to fall far short because they are human beings. Scientists are the same, when they 'prove' something they are subject to the human failings of standing by that decision in the face of opposing proofs. Not only that, some will distort the truth in order to prove that they are right until they are caught out and that goes the same for man made climate change as much as anything else.
The University of East Anglia is a case in point where scientists were caught purposely distorting results because the true figures did not support the theory. It is now known that many of the early computerised climate models were hopelessly inaccurate, yet many scientists (and the IPPC) have bought into this 'proof' and cannot now back off. I am not saying that the disbelievers are any less likely to be more honest when they come up with their figures. They buy into theories just the same as the believers and have a tendency to distort data as much as anyone.
Lets tackle the "95% of scientists believe in man made climate change" myth. 95% of scientists may believe in climate change as probably 95% of the population do, but this assertion that they all believe in man made climate change and Armageddon has never been tested, let alone proven. For a start who do we include as scientists? There are hundreds of different aspects of science and hundreds of thousands if not millions of scientists, has anyone ever held a poll? If we take climate scientists it may be a more manageable number but is there evidence that anyone has ever tested the theory? If there is, I have never seen it. In addition, do climate scientists really have the expertise we need to prove the theory? What about physicists, mathematicians, agriculturalists and many other branches of science that have expertise in aspects of the problem that would have a bearing on how the problem were perceived? Is the planet warming inexorably until the next ice age, is increased carbon dioxide a bad thing as it increases the growth of plants? Is the planet really warming as a result of increased CO2 or is increased CO2 the result of global warming as some would believe? There s a bewildering number of ways that figures can be represented to suit any set view of the situation. In addition I doubt even 95% climate scientists buy into the same idea.
We are in a worldwide Brexit situation with the believers and unbelievers on opposite sides of an issue which they rely on. Were they proven wrong the repercussions would be literally earth shattering, not to mention the political earthquakes ringing the world.
Me? I am an engineer (or was as I have given up my professional qualifications and associations). I await a calculation that can be found in a textbook and proven over and over by experiment. That is the basic tenet of science which is missing in all this, leading to public hysteria amongst the vulnerable and gullible. If scientists cannot even agree amongst themselves and are so bought in to their individual theories that they are no longer serving science or the public.
Mike.X
