Why "Climate-Gate" Matters

Can anyone guess how many of the 2500 volunteer scientists and other "experts" doing the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have a dissenting (or "minority" opinion, for the sake of argument) view of climate change? If that doesn't concern you, imagine the Supreme Court, for example, deciding not to publish a minority opinion. Any wonder that there is now such a thing as "climate-gate?"

In the United States of America, dissenting opinion is still a necessary cog in the republican democracy. Scientific integrity, likewise, depends on the due diligence of its researchers. It comes into play not only through the objective scientific method, but also in a peer-review process that does not taint the scientific process. In the case of the IPCC, not only is the science debatable, but the peer-review process is a mockery. For the IPCC, a "peer" simply means that its reports on climate change received the stamp of approval by like-minded left-leaning ideologues. This way, the IPCC can fast-track pre-ordained results to its parent, the United Nations. The UN, in turn, can claim a scientific consensus and move on to unrealistic and tax-heavy proposals like the Kyoto protocol and its successor, the recent Copenhagen talks.

Climate research is toxic right now, excuse the pun.

Senator Inhofe (R-OK) knows this all too well. In his newsletter, he points out that the list of dissenting scientists regarding global warming has currently swollen to over 700:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=d6d95751-802a-23ad-4496-7ec7e1641f2f&Region_id=&Issue_id=

The bottom line is that the climate "debate" has never even begun. The United Nations is standing in the way of scientific integrity. Some are wondering what, if anything, should be done to reform the IPCC in light of climate-gate and inaccuracies in their reports?

How about allowing dissenting opinion on the international panel to lend some scientific integrity to it?