Delicious Irony

Newscasters intone, “Scientists have reached a conclusion over global warming.” Al Gore runs around shouting, “The debate is over!” Well, not “over” as much as “orchestrated.” Emails stolen from computers at the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University in the UK (admittedly a crime, I hope they apprehend the hackers) reveal that there was a concerted effort by both American and European researchers to stifle differing points of view in reports released by the IPCC (that sacrosanct body always cited by global warming fanatics), a restriction of the free-flow of information and data (global warming skeptics were not allowed to view other researchers’ data), and attempts to suppress literature published in scientific journals that did not support human-induced global warming.

Now, true, the emails do not reveal a cover-up or scientists stating that the globe is not warming and just want the Kyoto Protocol for the heck of it. But it still shows a complete break-down of the supposedly objective peer-review system and basic scientific research concerning issues with huge political consequences. Why did the IPCC report not contain differing points-of-view? (Haven’t they heard of a thing called the minority report?)

Funnily enough, this huge issue apparently doesn’t concern the left. Instead, they’re in an uproar about “ethical violations” (which it was, but I don’t seem to remember a similar brouhaha over Sarah Palin’s email account being hacked…) and “that’s only a small part of the picture.”  Given that the relevant scientists have either refused comment or declined to deny that those were genuine emails, I’d be a little more worried about the failure of scientists to remain faithful to their predecessors in their methods and a little less about what the other emails might contain.

But in the end, at this important intersection between science and politics, it seems as though one has walked away slightly tarnished…