Science is supposed to be the unbiased search for truth.  The very definition of science is, “a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws.”

In middle school we all learn about the scientific process:

• Ask a question
• Do initial research
• Develop a hypothesis
• Test your hypothesis
• Analyze Data
• Draw a conclusion
• Communicate the results

It is meant to be free, a completely free process.  Nowhere in the method is there any mention of political influence.  It is free from the sway of popular opinion.  Free of the long standing traditions and influences of culture.  Free to dispel myths and legends.  Sadly this ideal seems to be more of a myth itself, than a reality.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (”IPCC”) has one mission, to disseminate climate change reports.  They publish material that people research.  It’s their job to get the truth out to the world concerning this world crisis.  Al Gore, based much of his movie and speeches on work published by this very group.  Their job is the final step in the scientific method, “communicate the results.”  It is not to alter the results to make your hypothesis look good.  This is essentially the same thing that happened with Fleischmann and Pons with Cold Fusion in 1989, namely they made up results to support their hypothesis.

In an article I wrote several weeks ago, Anthropomorphic Climate Change…Or Not I questioned the “settled” science.  I simply said, before we take drastic measures in changing our way of life, our economy, our social structure, that we should look further into the science that’s being reported.  As it turns out, my concerns were warranted.

Last week hackers broke into and got access to 10 years worth of emails from the IPCC.  While I’m no advocate of illegal computer hacking, the information that they found, is interesting, to say the least.

What they found were efforts to hide a lack of “global warming evidence.”  They had altered numbers and graphs, made a conscious effort to snub those who might disagree, tried to change how their reports were peer reviewed, and cover up the lack of substantial global warming evidence.

It’s clear that the IPCC’s goal is not one of seeking truth.  Going back to the scientific method their only purpose should be “communicating the results.”  If they were seeking truth the IPCC would look at the evidence objectively without any preconceived agendas, but this isn’t the case.  So what is their goal?

I have no way of knowing for sure, but I can hypothesize (see step 2 of the scientific method).  It’s my guess that they are in search of the same thing most politicians are, that is more power.  They are an organization that has great influence:

• The UN acts on their recommendations
• Treaties are being written based on what they say about Global warming.
• The IPCC has received massive funding (over $100 million) for their mission
• The IPCC received a Nobel Peace Prize for “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.”

The IPCC has been in existence for over 20 years.  They want to stick around and enjoy the influence that they have gained.  This can only happen if they perpetuate the “problem.”  That they have identified.  It’s a vicious cycle.  The bigger the problem, the bigger the accolades, the bigger the accolades the bigger they can make the problem.

If climate change was found to be a myth, over stated, or even if this “problem” was solved, what need would there be for the IPCC?  (Let’s test the hypothesis see step 3 of the scientific method) funding would dry up, their influence would evaporate just like they claim the seas will.  Unfortunately this major source of climate change information is corrupt, and every bit of data, coming from the IPCC is now suspect.

I state again, “I’m not saying that man has had nothing to do with changes in the environment, I’m simply saying we that don’t know for sure.”

I do know that we should look at it, in an unbiased, objective way.  That’s what the IPCC was supposed to do, instead it’s simply out to garner and maintain the power that it has so enjoyed since 1990.

Let science stay out of politics, and stick to the scientific method.  When science has, it served science and the rest of the world well for centuries.

Steve Eror

ERROR AND ANGER MANAGEMENT