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?

Climategate and Climate Control: Policies Based Upon Unvalidated Computer Models Can Lead to Enormous Misallocation of Resources

The country definitely needs to address its energy problems. We actually have an excess of technology to do that. We can begin serious engineering and construction as soon we develop a levelheaded plan and schedule.

What we don’t have is the practical technology to control carbon dioxide. Nor do we have convincing evidence that it is even necessary. The computer models that provided predictions of future values have done poorly and are certainly not sufficiently validated. The cost to society of trying worldwide carbon dioxide cap and trade control at the current level of knowledge is incalculable.

Because the climate control advocates chose to not provide their raw data, much of which was later destroyed, there has not been the opportunity by skeptics to participate in detailed analysis. Participation by opposing views is normally a part of any event which claims to be science. There is a lot of work required before we have an objective climate control program. Meanwhile critical energy programs await the resolution of climate control issues that may be years away

By making the energy program dependent upon carbon dioxide control we have reversed the priorities. We should go foreword full bore on an energy plan which does not wait for either carbon dioxide or climate control resolution. The energy plan would certainly include environmental fixes where well-founded information is available.

Climate control work should be restarted as objective programs aimed at resolving the list of current unknowns. A validated predictive computer model based upon improved understanding of governing principles should be high priority. All data must be available to all researchers. As objective and validated information is developed it would be integrated into the energy program.