Saturday, December 19, 2009

Climategate: How Much of Climate Change Policy is Fruit from a Poisonous Tree?

Sophisticated Americans Want to Know.

In court, evidence that is derived from prior evidence judged erroneous or inadmissible is itself inadmissible. It is considered “fruit of the poisonous tree”. Our government certainly owes its citizens the respect to apply this same principle of thorough examination of information and decision flows. The current climate change proposals are too costly and life changing to the nation to be based upon any poisonous trees or their fruit. This, of course, applies to both sides of the issue.

It appears that the only solution is to make all information available for review and critique by specialized and qualified private citizens who would volunteer their time as a patriotic responsibility. I would like to see that the following information is available for qualified citizens to examine before any major government initiative:

Details of the underlying data collection system combined with assurance that it was carried out in an objective manner by professionals with no vested interest.

Modification of raw data for analysis is thoroughly documented and available for full examination by other organizations or citizens.

The analysis behind the recommendations is thorough and presented in an orderly manner for critique by citizens and other organizations.

Consequences of the recommended or alternate actions are thoroughly explained and documented


As revealed by climategate we are far from these standards now.

This objective participation by specialized private citizens would provide an objective technology source to counter the existing decisionmaking methodology of using dueling public relation programs. It would also be one step in the process of the citizens outside of Washington having some disparately needed representation in the Washington government technology monopoly.

Is there a truly non-partisan, objective, privately funded organization that could provide the required administration leadership?

No comments: