Is Climategate serious in comparison with Peak Oil becoming mainstream?

December 11th, 2009

I still can not work out how serious is the conspiracy to fight the sceptics revealed in Climategate.

The Telegraph columnist Christopher Booker says it is the worst scientific scandalof a generation. The TimesOnLine records that key source data has been dumped but it is still hard to know how much more sinister this is than the normal range of partisan behaviour to be expected (though deplored) in any community of intellectual workers passionate about what they do.

But now there is a much more interesting fear to luxuriate in. The Economist reports that the IEA has not only shifted position in the Peak Oil debate. It has made a "new and striking claim" that puts a date estimate for reaching Peak Oil. "The output of conventional oil will peak in 2020 if oil demand grows on a business-as-usual basis.”

Filed under Economy, Environment

Comments

Peak Oil is not an apocalyptic event. The sky will not fall. If demand exceeds supply, the price will rise, and alternative sources of oil and alternative forms of energy will become more economic.

Global Warming, in the cold light of rational thought, is not an apocalyptic event, either. (Only in the fear-mongering minds of Hollywood directors and those trying to establish global taxes and global govt, where they dream up “tipping point” scenarios.) Planet Earth has had higher temperatures than today. It has had much higher CO2 levels than today. The Earth is still here, humming along in chaotic equilibrium.

But I agree with Christopher Booker that Climategate has done immeasurable damage to science. Not only climate science, but it has tainted the scientific method, the peer-review process and even the reputation of scientists as an entire profession. The villains need to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for their fraud, deception, intimidation and destruction of Freedom of Information data.

Not only that, but the UN IPCC needs to be disbanded, all its reports expunged, and all political action on climate change suspended until truly transparent, truly peer-reviewed science is found to give it credence.

(Mind you, in the absence of sky-falling scenarios, we should just tackle any climate change as our ancestor did before — by adapting.)

And if you’re serious about knowing the extent of the damage done by Climategate so far, take a look at Lord Monckton at the 2nd International Climate Conference in Berlin.

Climategate is a sideshow, and I think Stephen has summarised it nicely. The debate about Anthropomorphic Global Warming continues and it is no more than common sense that when there are two positions, both unproven but possible, and one may have catastrophic consequences, that a prudent person does what they can to mitigate against that possibility. Winning a debate about whether your designated driver is drunk or not is never the same as taking a Taxi when you cannot be sure one way or the other. Gareth Morgan’s “Poles Apart” remains to me the best attempt by an honest broker to examine the issue.

Honest broker?
the reference to a designated driver is very very poor form and incorrect.
the top leadership of the IPCC has committed fraud, now that’s serious.

as for peak oil, maybe its correct or maybe it isn’t. so lets be frugal in our use if it.
But lets prosecute, sue the fraudsters wherever they domicile as what they have done is a crime against humanity.