The Integrity of Science

Most of the research about the climate is funded by the various governments around the world. When a group goes to Antarctica for the purpose of reconstructing the Earth’s temperature history by drilling ice cores, the money comes from various governments. This is generally why the data and information is generally freely available for anyone that wants it. The information is in the public domain. It is because of this that I had access to the many types of data I have used in my research.

This is always a good thing. Most people will never download and analyze vast quantities of the data that is available. Much of the data that is available is not very interesting, even to people like me. One thing that is concerning is that the ability to get access to the information and even the ability of the scientists that do the research is starting to be restricted.

In the spring of 2010 Canada implemented new rules that prevent scientists from discussing their research with the media without prior approval of the government. These new rules are being applied across broad categories that include oil production, glaciers, seabeds and historical flooding. Since the government funds the research they can enforce this by withholding future funds for researchers. In essence they are starting down the path of controlling what scientists are allowed to say.

The Canadian government is also controlling the content that is released when they do allow the researchers to discuss their findings to the media. This makes it impossible to dissent from the official government policies without the risk of losing future funding. In this manner the Canadian government has taken the first step to controlling all information that is funded by the government there.

Needless to say any research coming out of Canada will only be what is allowed by government bureaucrats. Canada is silencing anyone who does not agree to say what the government allows them to say.

There are other ways that research can be withheld from the public. In the United States the preferred method is to never complete the research. The best example of this is from Alaska ice cores. Specifically the Bona-Churchill ice cores that were drilled in 2002. When the research team went there they expected to find at least 20,000 years of temperature records. What they found was 2,500 years of data. This means that the glacier they drilled was only 2,500 years old.  That certainly means that areas of Alaska were much warmer before that time.  This correlates perfectly to other Northern Hemispheric ice cores that show it has been cooling for several thousand years.

It was also expected to show that the current period is showing dramatic warming. Since they have never completed the research, what they found is not precisely known. They were required to make one public presentation which they did in 2004, but in the 6 and ½ years since they have never completed the research which would require the data to be released. Millions of taxpayer dollars went into the research, but since the results have not been released, that money was essentially thrown away.  In the one presentation the following unpublished data was displayed.

Inconvenient Skeptic

Unpublished Bona-Churchill Ice Core Analysis

Little analysis can be done from this single available picture, but the one thing that is very clear is that this area of Alaska was warmer 400 years ago than it is today.  Any statement otherwise is ignoring this as a source of data.  Why this data has not been released after more than 8 years is a mystery.  The above link is to the actual website from the university that did the ice core.

Science is about increasing knowledge. Canada has taken an official approach to limiting what researchers can say to the public. In the United States researchers take it upon themselves to not release data that contradicts what they wanted to find. In both cases public money is being used to prevent a free flow of information.

While this article is not scientific in nature, the integrity of science and the scientists involved is important. Important decisions should be based on an open discussion of all relevant facts. When it comes to the science of global warming, that open discussion is not happening.

Posted in Fear and Misinformation and Science Articles - Global Warming by inconvenientskeptic on September 24th, 2010 at 11:55 pm.

Add a comment

Web Design & Dev by

Mazal Simantov Digital Creativity