They are seriously everywhere. Came across this hair-raising letter in Matt’s New Civil Engineer (this lot publish their addresses – you can’t fault them for courage of their convictions or trust). It’s the latest in a to-and-fro over recent issues.
Global warming: is there enough evidence for a war?
Published: 20 August 2008 15:36 | Last Updated: 20 August 2008 15:36 | Reader Responses
Brian Hanson, in supporting the case for anthropogenic global warming (AGW), refers to “impartial” scientific research (Letters last week). And there’s the rub.
Because virtually all those connected with the IPCC, and many other climatologists, are directly or indirectly in the pay of governments committed to AGW theory, and interested only in research results that support it. Impartial scientific climate research under these circumstances is about as rare as impartial intelligence assessments were in the case of the Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction. And any governmental employee who has studied the contrasting career paths of Sir John Scarlett and the late David Kelly will surely know on which side his or her bread is buttered.
It is therefore vital to search out such truly independent climate scientists as may exist, and ensure their research results are publicised and their views heard.
While conservation of fossil fuel resources is surely important, whatever position is held, some other policies currently propounded may actually make matters worse rather than better if the scientific basis is uncertain.
Even AGW enthusiasts frequently include “could” and similar weasel words in their forecasts – witness the three uses of “could” in the short paragraph setting out Rajendra Pachauri’s views in your recent editorial (Comment, 24 July).
JOHN HOUNSLOW (F), 18 Peacock Close, Downend, Fareham, Hants, PO16 8YG
I can only scratch the surface of what is wrong with this but my questions are broadly as follows. What war? How does he explain the international consensus among governments comprising the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change that the AGW theory holds water? Why should we assume that the politics of scientists funded by democratically elected governments override their commitment to finding out the truth? David Kelly is most famous for winding up dead – is this what John Hounslow is getting at? Why is “could” a weasel word when used by a Nobel Prize Winner attempting, to the best of his human ability, to predict the future?