Interesting commentary in the Washington Times on Saturday. It seems a few "facts" are surfacing about the research conducted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on global warming.

Contributor Sterling Burnett is a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis (a nonpartisan, nonprofit research institute in Dallas) and made some interesting points about the IPCC's "study of climate change". I'll print a few of those points here, but I encourage you to read the full article here.

In a 2001 report, the IPCC published an image commonly referred to as the "hockey stick." This graph showed relatively stable temperatures from A.D. 1000 to 1900, with temperatures rising steeply from 1900 to 2000...

However, several studies cast doubt on the accuracy of the hockey stick, and in 2006 Congress requested an independent analysis of it. A panel of statisticians chaired by Edward J. Wegman, of George Mason University, found significant problems with the methods of statistical analysis used by the researchers and with the IPCC's peer review process. For example, the researchers who created the hockey stick used the wrong time scale to establish the mean temperature to compare with recorded temperatures of the last century. Because the mean temperature was low, the recent temperature rise seemed unusual and dramatic. This error was not discovered in part because statisticians were never consulted. -Source

It also appears that there is a bit of conflict of interest in the scientific community. Mr. Burnett points out that many in a small group of climate specialists, nearly 43 different individuals, had coauthored papers with the head of research, the same guy who had "formulated" the so called hockey stick chart.

In the end, Mr. Wegman and his team could only conclude that:

"...the idea that the planet is experiencing unprecedented global warming "cannot be supported.""

One thing was made very clear to me in college when conducting research and running tests: eliminate any personal bias from the research you are conducting, and make sure your tests can be reproduced, eliminate as many variables as possible, and only state scientific facts. This mantra seems to have been lost in "global warming research".

A good example of a principle clearly violated is "Make sure forecasts are independent of politics." Politics shapes the IPCC from beginning to end. Legislators, policymakers and/or diplomatic appointees select (or approve) the scientists — at least the lead scientists — who make up the IPCC. In addition, the summary and the final draft of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report was written in collaboration with political appointees and subject to their approval.

Sadly, Mr. Green and Mr. Armstrong found no evidence the IPCC was even aware of the vast literature on scientific forecasting methods, much less applied the principles.

The truth on the IPCC is coming out, slowly but surely. It's interesting to note that these new developments haven't made it to the nightly news. Until it's foreseen that the truth will instill outrage in viewers, it won't get the ratings, and hence won't be broadcast.

Corner Office Commentary

Every reader of this blog knows I've been skeptical about Al Gore and his man-made global warming agenda from day one. I still am, and I'm excited to see that conflicting opinions are now making it into the main stream media, slowly but surely.

As with every post on global warming, I must bring about a point of clarity. I am not disputing global warming all together, as I firmly believe that climate change goes in cycles, as evidenced by the number of ice ages our planet has been through, and these cycles have been scientifically proven and accepted world-wide. I am disputing the "consensus" that has been forced upon the general public that mankind is largely to blame for the increase in global temperatures.

I am encouraged by the change that this hysteria has brought upon our research and development of new green ways to conserve and reduce. The amount of smog and ozone that has blanketed major cities in the last few decades CAN be attributed to mankind, and it is not good for our overall health. So if this scientific farce brought on by a politically motivated former politician is stimulating these changes, so be it. But I think the scientific community owes the general public the unbiased facts about mankind's involvement in global warming before our do-nothing politicians find a way to really screw up our economy based on bogus political conjecture.