Climate science has become a politically corrupted, agenda-driven, federally beholden science-industrial complex; along with a military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned about in his 1961 farewell address.
As he stated: “The prospect of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of scientific-technological elite.”
Estimating that as many as half of all medical studies are wrong, Editor-in-Chief Richard Horton of The Lancet, a leading peer-reviewed international medical journal notes that medical science “has taken a turn towards darkness.”
He attributes this circumstance to research “afflictions,” failings which can also be observed to infect many U.S. and UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports.
Included are small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance.
As in the case of highly sensationalized IPCC reporting, Dr. Horton admits that scientific journal editors “aid and abet the worst behaviors” in order to gain a maximum “impact factor.”
He charges that, “In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their theory of the world.”
A May 22 New York Times article, entitled “What’s Behind Big Science Frauds?”, agrees. Authors Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky discuss how leading scientific journals have been duped into publishing bogus studies which reference nonexistent data.
Again, this results from pressure to double down on that all-important “impact factor” of influence determined by the likelihood studies will be referenced in subsequent “downstream” articles.
Given that most all climate research funding comes from public alarm-dependent agenda-driven government sponsors, and their ideological Green activist acolytes, there should be little surprise that so many researchers bend objectivity and science to oblige.
As the late Stephen Schneider who authored important parts of three UN IPCC reports has explained, “(L)ike most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change.”
Schneider argued that, “To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of the doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
Very recent evidence of this agenda-driven “biased finger on the scales” balancing problem is revealed by attempts of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists to re-write surface temperature records prior to the late 1990s downward and inflate temperatures since then in order to tell the warming alarm story they wanted.
More accurate atmospheric satellite data reveals that there has been no statistically significant global warming over the past 18 years and counting.
After global warming (which hasn’t occurred since today’s high school students were born) was rebranded as “climate change” (which it always does), Obama Administration alarm sirens now warn us about an “extreme weather” trend attributed to human CO2 emissions.
Yet simple fact checking would show that it’s been nearly a decade since the last major hurricane named Wilma made landfall in the U.S. in 2005. Meanwhile, tornadoes, droughts, wildfires — along with polar ice and sea levels — are in line with or improving in regard to historic trends.
Prominent University of Manchester professor emeritus of chemical thermodynamics and Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry Leslie Woodcock blames powerful green lobbies for creating a “do-good industry” premised upon unwarranted climate alarm.
As quoted in interview with Britain’s Yorkshire Evening Post, the prominent scientist said: “If you talk to real scientists who have no political interests, they will tell you there is nothing in global warming. It’s an industry which creates vast amounts of money for some people.”
My friend, former EPA analyst Alan Carlin, who blew the whistle on IPCC junk science used to advance fossil fuel regulatory agendas observes that “The global warming scare is a textbook example of what can happen when politics and ideology guide environmental policy rather than science.”
Important skill sets of agenda-driven climate scientists and politicians obviously share much in common.
As Winston Churchill explained, “Politics is the ability to fortell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month and next year, And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn’t happen.”
NOTE: A version of this article also appears at: http://www.newsmax.com/LarryBell/Climate-Change-Global-Warming-Media-Bias/2015/08/31/id/672766/#ixzz3kPs1Z6vR