More evidence of bad science

The Ottawa version of "24 Hours" -- the free daily commuter newspaper -- had a front page on "Climate Questions". NOTE: The newspaper is presented in Flash (boo) and I had Flash errors trying to link to it. Just ignore them. You also have to switch pages to the third page. Sorry.

A new Canadian study suggests that many scientists studying the affects climate change on different species could come up with faulty conclusions due to their scientific laziness. The IPCC provides 31 different climate models, but most biologists only use one model.

Most alarmingly, of the 65 studies that have used the IPCC models, only five have used more then one model.

This is a alarming, as these studies are being used to shape climate change policy across the world. I guess it is easy to take shortcuts and not finish your research when the first model validates your preconceived notions that climate change is going to reshape the world.

Now this revelation doesn't prove or disapprove the underlying issue of climate change, and mankind's impact on it. But it certainly adds ammunition to people whom contest that there is too much bad science surrounding the whole climate change debate.

This reminds me of the story a year and a half back on the so called study that proved global warming was causing more (and more violent) hurricanes. You can read about this here.

Regardless of the facts of climate change, the policy set from this kind of research will cost billions, perhaps harm the economy, and change the living standards for millions of people in the industrialized world. Surely it behooves the world's scientists to at least make sure their research is sound, and validated by multiple climate models.