I personally am ready to be informed by FACTS, not fed manipulated estimates to further someone's agenda. The principles of scientific evaluation of the actual data to form the basis of adjusting the models to match the OBSERVED DATA must be the only way the climate models are developed. Currently, it's clear that the models are full of assumptions, possibly politically motivated, that drive the models to predict outcomes far from observed data which in scientific circles makes the models wrong by definition.
If there are 32 climate models used by various countries and 31 of them predicted wildly different results than the observed data, that very much disturbs me as public policy affecting billions of people are based on these faulty models. I'm not saying that the climate isn't warmer than 200 years ago; it is, however, 200 years ago we were in an acknowledged 'mini ice age' according to the scientific data.
I don't say that we ignore necessary pollution controls or excessive emissions, however, we have to decide what is necessary and what is excessive scientifically, not to further one's agenda. I say we task the scientific community to a real scientific evaluation of the actual data (not assumption biased, tweaked data), come up with scientifically fact supported conclusions, perform a rigorous peer review of the conclusions, and only after the entire scientific community has done a rigorous review, publish the result to the world. Then the policy makers and heads of industry will have the real, trusted data with which to make legitimate policy and business decisions.
This politicizing of scientific data to further one's agenda is wrong at it's very core, whatever side of the debate one is on.
