While I have long counted myself as one of the skeptics of the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), I don’t believe advocates of the theory invented it out of whole cloth. Aware of efforts to “seed clouds” and create rainfall, I know human activities can impact the environment Indeed, the recent snowfall in Beijing was caused by Chinese meteorologists when they sought to end a drought in the Middle Kingdom
If chemicals deliberately released into the atmosphere could create rainfall, then chemicals released into the atmosphere as a byproduct of industrial activities could have similar effects.
But, much as I take the science seriously, I question the zealotry of some advocates of this theory, particularly Al Gore. Many refuse to debate those who have come to different conclusions, dismissing the scientists offering such views as tools of corporate interests and otherwise insulting skeptics. And the disclosure of the e-mails from the University of East Anglia reveals that this attitude extends to scientists as well as activists.
With the release of those e-mails, we find Dr. Kenneth Treberth befuddled that “we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment“. He’s confused because the data don’t much the theory, leading Ed Morrissey to wonder if he’s not a scientist, but a believer:
Do scientists use data to test theories, or do they use theories to test data? Scientists will claim the former, but here we have scientists who cling to the theory so tightly that they reject the data. That’s not science; it’s religious belief.
My skepticism of the theory of AGW arises as much for the zealotry of its followers as it does from the arguments of its critics (and skeptics). The release of these e-mails only increases my skepticism. Others believe it is evidence of fraud and have demanded an investigation.
Let’s have that investigation and do so by considering the facts and not calling each other names.