Posted on November 30, 2015
UCS is a corruption of science
If you often read news articles about “climate change,” then you’ve surely seen a group called the Union of Concerned Scientists cited as an expert source. When you encounter such a reference, you might as well stop reading, because what follows will have no scientific validity whatsoever. We know this from the fact that the very title of UCS is a contradiction in terms.
There’s a reason why there isn’t an organization called the Union of Objective Scientists. A scientist is supposed to follow the evidence wherever it leads him. It’s entirely plausible for two good scientists, separately studying the same subject, to arrive at different conclusions. Science does not demand that they unite to get their story straight. There’s hardly anything more anti-scientific than a group of self-appointed representatives of science declaring that an issue is settled, and must never be questioned again.
UCS, which was unscientifically founded by Vietnam-era anti-military activists, is really just a political organization that promotes policy changes based on politically corrupted science. Take, for example, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which is defying a subpoena of its internal communications from the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. UCS charges that committee chairman Lamar Smith has “attempted to manufacture controversy … without any evidence or analysis that NOAA scientists ‘altered the data’” in a study of global surface temperatures that it released in June.
In reality, there is no disputing the fact that the NOAA has altered its data. The disagreement lies in the agency’s characterization of these alterations as a routine process of revising the figures to account for statistical anomalies, as opposed to Republican legislators’ suspicion that the changes were driven by political motivations – or “concerns,” if you will.
Until this year, the NOAA had conceded that the rate of increase in the earth’s temperature has slowed dramatically since 1998, a finding that basically agreed with the Remote Sensing Systems atmospheric satellite data, which finds no warming at all during that same period. Scaremongers have had to embarrass themselves by explaining away this trend as a “hiatus” within a broader pattern of global warming. The new, altered NOAA data have revised historical temperatures downward, the effect being that recent temperatures are higher by comparison, and therefore that there is no global warming hiatus after all. You don’t have to be Dale Gribble to suspect that there’s a conspiracy afoot.
Congressman Smith wants to investigate the manner in which the NOAA produced and publicized this new report, to see if it was improperly influenced. UCS decries this as “harassment,” as if the workings of a federal bureau were none of the business of the elected representatives of the people.
Lost amid the controversy is what it says about the NOAA’s reliability in general. If its previous surface temperature readings were as dramatically wrong as it now says they were, then why should we trust that its revised data are so much more accurate? If UCS were being scientific instead of concerned, it would be as leery of the NOAA as Rep. Smith is.
Once a scientist becomes “concerned,” he ceases to function as a scientist. Once he has dedicated himself to a political campaign against manmade global warming, the nonexistence of such a phenomenon is no longer an acceptable option. Any information that fails to conform to his predetermined conclusion is therefore unwelcome.
That corruptive effect is buttressed by the fact that the prescribed remedies for global warming read like a left-wing totalitarian’s to-do list: from anti-industrialism to global wealth redistribution, to population control, to vegetarianism, to nullification of property rights under the rubric of “land use change.” Far from being an objective geological theory, it is the galvanizing force behind the entire leftist political agenda. After the dissenting voices have all been squelched, the acceptance of these initiatives will be seen as compulsory. It will simply be what must be done in order to “save the planet.”
Even if there ever was any honest science behind the belief in manmade global warming, it was immediately corrupted by political ulterior motives. If the NOAA data has been falsified to show global warming where there isn’t any, it won’t be the first such offense on behalf of the cause, nor will it be the last.
Nor will “concerned scientists” give a flying beaker about it. What really concerns them is not that the earth may be getting warmer. It is that anyone should dare question their pseudo-scientific mandate for building their liberal utopia.
The Shinbone: The Frontier of the Free Press