Climate change

As a technologist, I do not "do" science, but I do use scientific results. This means adopting a high regard for the peer reviewed, tested, logical conclusions based on sound evidence that forms the basis of science. The world has improved immeasurably as a result of such an approach, we have been taken out of the rule of ignorance and superstition and into one of reason and progress.

Then along comes the IPCC.. I am not a climate scientist, the world may be heading for a terrible catastrophe much worse even than they predict, I do not know, but I do know they have insulted the ideals of science by their behaviour. In particular, by the personal attacks on any scientist who dares to question "the consensus" on global warming, the deliberate use of scare stories to gain attention and the blatantly political means they use to put over what looks like science.

It leaves people like me in a quandary, who to believe? I hear intelligent people claim the "science is settled", and that "1,500 top scientists agree". The trouble is, both of those statements can be shown to be lies. Firstly, science is rarely "settled", predictions of climate change are predicated on probabilities, the results are therefore probabilities in themselves, hardly "settled". Many, especially non-scientists, simply miss out the probabilities, which is nonsense. The claim that 1,500 scientists agree is also nonsense, some of these 1,500 people have tried hard but failed to remove their name from the list, many of the others are chosen from a list of people thought to be friendly to the IPCC line, those who do not agree with that line are not invited to take part. That is not science, it is politics and we all know what happens if we trust politicians. It is not widely realised, but the IPCC is a political not scientific organisation, it does not "do" science, it trawls the world for work that aligns with its political agenda.

The trouble with this rape of science is that people may start to think that the scientific method itself is flawed, hence plunging us back into the arms of ignorance and superstition. We have seen it before with the report The Limits to Growth. Published in 1972 by the Club of Rome, the IPCC of the 1970s, this report predicted all sorts of catastrophes. They were wrong, partly because they did not listen to counter arguments.

If we silence those who question the main line, we will head back into the dark ages. We need an open, responsive and questioning society, not one dominated by beliefs, however firmly held, but one predicated on reason, evidence and sound scepticism.