Anecdotal evidence does not an understanding make

All you global warming fanatics and all you anti-global warming fanatics please take note.

Just as the higher temperatures of recent years is an entirely illogical and useless indicator that we are in a period of global warming, the drastically cold weather of the 2007-2008 winter is an equally useless indicator that we are not. The opposing opinions for or against global cooling, is just as applicable. Both of these extreme positions are caused by emotional reactions exacerbated by political bias and media hype. They have very little to do with the science of climate or climate change. These opinions are used by media hypers and those with a political agenda as weapons, really brutish clubs wielded indiscriminately. Among we who analyze the facts objectively, it seems this has to be obvious to all but the dimmest of light bulbs.

For those who would like to be enlightened about what we do know about climate and also informed of the infinitely larger body of information that we do not know, there are a lot of conflicting data and wildly divergent opinions available from both good and questionable sources. Just because the word science or scientist is attached to any source of information or opinion does not make it accurate, or even honest. Ever hear of the Piltdown man hoax?

Deliberate misinformation aside, it is extremely easy for any scientist to have his opinion shaded a bit in the direction of what he hopes to be true, especially if that helps obtain a grant, gain a research assignment, get a paper published, or win a prestigious prize. (The Nobel people even bragged that it was political expediency that motivated the award to Al Gore. Is that not the ultimate height of hypocrisy?) After all, scientists are people just like the rest of us. They are certainly not immune to the temptation to shade equations and conclusions in the direction of their own desires and opinions. This is especially true where the balance point between one direction and the opposite is close to the center. They can honestly express that those close choices are one way or the other and not be condemned except by those with differing opinions or agendas.

Consider the differing pressures on scientists brought about by their position or circumstance. All are at least partially affected by the political, social, emotional, financial and hierarchical pressures of their positions in the organization, their peers, their superiors and even those who work for them. To some extent, each group described has most of the same or similar pressures of all of the other groups.

University scientists have all the pressures of the academic environment: the need to be published, the requirements to do directed research, the need to obtain grants by yielding to the desires and requirements of the grantors, the requirements to meet peer review standards, and often the need to be socially and politically correct.

Government scientists have many of the same pressures as the academics and a few different ones: The need to meet often rigid technical and mechanical government requirements, the strict hierarchy of the government bureaucracy, the annual budget submission and justification process and all the other government red tape requirements.

Private industry scientists have some special pressures: meeting profitability projections, sometimes special reporting processes, meeting company purpose or mission requirements, less job security than the others, considerable job or position competition, and more powerful superiors to deal with.

All of these pressures can affect research related decisions and the ultimate tenor of the chosen and reported results. Much data that sits on a fence is moved one way or the other by these pressures rather than by truly objective judgement.

Once in the hands of the media or politicians, information from those close choices with their many shades of gray opinions, become pure black or pure white. Remember the fable of the man who blew on his cold hands to warm them as he came in out of the cold and then blew on his hot soup to cool it? The moral is something about how can one blow hot and cold with the same breath? For media and political people, facts are rarely significant compared to the power of a position that furthers their chosen agenda. Their opinions blow hot or cold at their whim. Politization of anything is the art of creating an effective club with which to beat down and destroy competitors or rivals. It has absolutely nothing to do with finding the truth or facts in the matter, or developing a workable solution to any problem other than that of getting elected or gaining higher ratings.

If you would like to read some hopefully reasonable opinions about climate and where it might be headed, there are anumber of articles from several viewponts in earlier postings on this blog. All you need do is scroll down to find them.

For additional information in another blog goto http://hjgulfstream.blogspot.com/. The most recent article there is about geothermal energy so scroll down to the section on global warming and the Gulf Stream.

Incidently, I have a powerful personal motive for hopping onto the global warming bandwagon. As the author of a book on energy and what could be the best answer to the global warming problem, I could very easily embrace the whole global warming movement in its promotion. My book, A Convenient Solution, is about to be released and in spite of this, I still remain objectively neutral on global warming.