But there's something much, much worse going on—a silencing of climate scientists, akin to filtering what goes in the bible, that will have consequences for public policy, including the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) recent categorization of carbon dioxide as a "pollutant."By working assiduously to prevent critics from getting published, they've been able to claim that they represent scientific consensus. And their results then became the basis for the IPCC report which in turn is the basis for the EPA's recent ruling on regulating carbon dioxide.
The bible I'm referring to, of course, is the refereed scientific literature. It's our canon, and it's all we have really had to go on in climate science (until the Internet has so rudely interrupted). When scientists make putative compendia of that literature, such as is done by the U.N. climate change panel every six years, the writers assume that the peer-reviewed literature is a true and unbiased sample of the state of climate science.
That can no longer be the case. The alliance of scientists at East Anglia, Penn State and the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (in Boulder, Colo.) has done its best to bias it.
Since Francis Bacon, we've come to rely on science as based on empirical research and observable facts. That is why the hard sciences has always seemed so much more dependable than the social sciences.
This scandal has damaged that reputation. Unless we see some self-correction from all the scientific agencies and organizations involved, we will never again have confidence in their research on global warming. They can't pretend, as Al Gore has tried, that these leaks haven't irreparably harmed the entire field of paleoclimatology. Right now, at Copenhagen, they're all whistling past the graveyard and hoping that people won't notice the massive elephant laying a turd right in the middle of their self-proclaimed scientific consensus.