Which Will Win: Science Or Politics? The War On Climate Change Is Getting Intense

The whole thing started when President Donald Trump said that he thinks climate change is a Chinese hoax. It was further intensified when he won the elections and went on to announce that he will be cutting down funding pertaining to the climate change research. It looks like now a new strategy is being applied to take down the peers who have proposed and validated the effects of climate change and global warming.

Although still a speculation, many believe that scientists are choosing sides to protect their own interest, while others think that they are just taking this opportunity to attack academic competitors on a personal level. Whatever the reason may be, it looks like climate change scientists are being attacked on multiple fronts, starting from the threats of being losing their research funding, salaries and even jobs while being questioned on the credibility of their already accomplished scientific research. The Guardian reported that each scientist is isolated and attacked on a personal level in a planned manner, which seems to be in accordance with the basic principle of "Serengeti Strategy."

In one such recent incident, David Rose, who is also a non-believer of climate change, accused that one of the research articles authored by Karl, et al. and is published in 2015 presents manipulated and falsified data on global temperature changes collected by NOAA researchers. He also stated that the data are misleading the whole world into believing that climate change is real.

However, when an in-depth analysis of the facts and figures was done, it was found that the figures, graphs and data analysis shown in the articles are in agreement with five other independent studies conducted by research groups from various other parts of the world and are not biased or manipulated, e.g., the article published by Huang, et al.

ICARUS reported that John Bates from NOAA, who is also the alleged "whistle blower" behind the whole allegation of falsified data presentation, did not attend any technical seminars or meeting related to the said research project. Thus, his remarks on the fidelity of the scientific data are a mere assumption, which was perhaps made in his own personal interests.

However, the truth is out in open now. And yet the whole controversy is an indication of the tough times that climatologists are most likely going to face soon.