Global Warming & The Scientific Process

It's a dead horse, surely: the science is in, the consensus is there, and that's that. Global Warming is manmade, it's going to destroy the world as we know it, and the only way to stop it is to destroy all industry and agriculture everywhere, Right Now.

Certainly it's a dead horse here, anyhow. It's heard everywhere in one form or another: The consensus is in. The consensus says, "thus." And it is treated as just so. There's just one problem; science is not a democratic process. From the Wikipedia entry on scientific consensus:

Scientific consensus is not, by itself, a scientific argument, and is not part of the scientific method;[...]

See also, from the same article:

For example, in physics there exists scientific consensus on general relativity and quantum mechanics. Special relativity and quantum mechanics are unified in the framework of quantum field theory (QFT). There exists scientific consensus that QFT is a very useful description, but it is not a final theory.

And yes, there is a consensus on anthropogenic global warming, this is true. This consensus was "finalized" as it were by the IPCC. There's been a common rallying statement that this proves that anthropogenic global warming is just "the way it is." -- As stated previously by this blog, there have even been arguments that now, global warming denial is on par with Holocaust denial. There was even an Australian Journalist who suggested that global warming denial ought to be made criminal:

Perhaps there is a case for making climate change denial an offence - it is a crime against humanity after all.

Consider this question: Is a scientific consensus valid if it is legally forced into existence, because even questioning it is criminal? Much of this, of course, rests on the concept of "proof"; which truly has no place in science.

But let's go back to the question of the IPCC, the definitive "source" as it were for the scientific consensus on global warming. For it to be a valid resource, it would have to have derived its consensus wholly from scientific processes alone, with no input from any other source -- such as, say, political processes. But remember; this is a scientific body, right? There's no shenanigans going on: it's totally clear. That's the message repeated over and over elsewhere (and, to be fair, denied elsewhere.) But there are some prominent individuals whom are raising their objections to what's going on here, trying to shed some light on this process. One such is Doctor Christopher Landsea, whose open letter to the scientific community is readily available online. His letter opens up, quite boldly:

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

And this was the man whom was the head of the meteorological section of the IPCC through its first, second, and third assessment reports. Not a trivial figure or minority voice, in the least. Another man whom whom needs to be considered, as well, would be Steven McIntire. He, not too long ago, found a rather disturbing piece of information about the IPCC, which was squirreled away in an obscure location. On his blog, Climate Audit, he made the following revelation:

Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter.

This was taken from the document entitled, "PROCEDURES FOR THE PREPARATION, REVIEW, ACCEPTANCE, ADOPTION, APPROVAL AND PUBLICATION OF IPCC REPORTS" and the quote is located on page 4, third paragraph, fifth sentence. There's really just no denying it any longer; the delay can only be for one reason: to edit the science to match the statements. You'd think that sort of thing would be emblazoned across the news media; after all, it's fraud, isn't it? Well, maybe it's a mistake, or certainly it's a unique circumstance, at least. Sadly, neither is the case.

And it is for precisely this reason that things such as this, and this, are denied airtime at all, and aren't included in the IPCC's reports; they would "damage the consensus."

Because it bears repeating: a consensus is irrelevant if it is forced to exist. This author, of course, is a skeptic; but it is worth mentioning that this state of affairs only came about after my investigations into global warming, to learn the science for myself. I wasn't always a skeptic: I honestly believed in anthropogenic global warming. But every day, as I learn more, and see more, always with my eyes open -- I cannot help but realize that there is something more going on here.

For the brave, or bored; see more on this topic in the following posts of this blog:
-- Thoughts on Organization
-- Energy Scarcity & Government Action: Happy Bedpartners?
-- A Hidden Truth
-- Cashing In on a Trend

EDIT: See further material on this topic over at Classically Liberal, at "The grapes of math: Global Warming Fraud?"