Under the backdrop of that gathering, are the stunning emails hacked from the University of East Anglia, which suggest data manipulation, bullying tactics over journal peer-review process - an excerpt from Wall Street Journal:
" .... opponents of such caps said the foundations of the case for man-made global warming are in question because of the disclosures from thousands of emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit. The emails suggest that prominent climate researchers sought to disguise important discrepancies in their data showing a trend of rising global temperatures and attack those who disagreed with their views.
"However this controversy comes out, the result will not call into question the bulk of our understanding of how climate works or how humans affect it," said Mr. Holdren, director of the Office of Science, Technology and Policy. He agreed it is important to "get to the bottom of" the emails' meaning, but emphasized that the vast majority of scientists who have studied climate change agree that failure to act promptly to curb emissions of heat-trapping gases is "overwhelmingly likely" to lead to extreme and damaging impacts on the planet.
His comments were challenged by Rep. James Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican who said the emails "at worst" suggest "a massive scientific international fraud."
The arrogance of academics at the University of East Anglia, who ought to be showing some contrition and humility, was on display, on BBC 2's Newsnight programme last Friday, 4 December 2009. Professor Andrew Watson, at UEast Anglia, called another Newsnight guest, Marc Marano, US Senate Environment Committee Communication Director, 2006-2009, an "asshole". What a great science role-model the Professor is. See 11.42/11.43 mins into the programme here BBC2 Newsnight, Friday 4 December 2009 edition.
Nor did Ed Milliband, UK MP and Climate Change Secretary, fair any better with his disingenuous dismissing of those leaked emails, completely ignoring their inflammatory content - interactions between climate change scientists anxious that the scale of global warming was less than it needed to be to suit, not to mention their hi-jacking of the peer-review journal process in that field. See here, here, and here.
And again today, Ed Miliband accuses ex-UK Chancellor, Nigel Lawson, of misleading, on BBC1's Politics Show, (Sunday 6 December 2009), when it is Milliband who is glossing over the fact that there is no scientific consensus of the human impact on climate change, while Lawson quite rightly points out that the poorest people on this planet require support and development, using cheapest fuel, to get out of their poverty-stricken no-opportunity despairing lives:
This Daily Telegraph poll shows that half of those questioned are yet to be convinced of human-effect climate change.
The ICM survey for The Sunday Telegraph will dismay proponents of "man-made" climate change – including leading scientists and the majority of world governments – as they gather in Copenhagen for the landmark climate summit.
Asked if they backed the main conclusion of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that humans are largely responsible for modern day rises in temperatures, ..[48 per cent of voters disagreed]...
39 per cent said climate change had not yet been proven to be man made, while seven per cent simply denied the phenomenon was happening at all. Furthermore, fewer than one in four voters (23 per cent) believed that climate change was "the most serious problem faced by man" – a view endorsed by governments across the world.
A clear majority (58 per cent) said it was merely "one of a number of serious problems" while 17 per cent believed it has been exaggerated and is "not a very serious problem."
Read more here.
"The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus." Michael Crichton
Let's have some truth and honesty injected into this debate, but where politicians are involved with scientists, I rather doubt this will happen.
On a much lighter note, this is genius, especially the last line "Or I could write it up for Scientific American".
Thanks to Obnoxio's blog for that YouTube video :-)