Lies, damned lies, and 'climate change'

One of the biggest scientific scandals of our age, described in two sentences:

That supposed scientific "consensus" about global warming may actually be a conspiracy. E-mails from a British climate-research organization -- obtained by an Australian magazine, Investigate -- disclose scientists discussing a statistical "trick" to "hide the decline" of global temperatures in their data.

More reaction at Memeorandum.

UPDATE I: Before we go any further, let's understand why this is so important. There have always been scientists who have disputed the "consensus" about global warming. Many of the alleged "experts" whose authority has been cited on behalf of this consensus are not, in fact. especially qualified in the field of meteorology, and some of the most prominent spokesmen on the topic of climate change -- e.g., Al Gore -- are no more qualified than you or I to speak as experts.

With the assistance of a pliant media establishment, the global-warming crowd has created the impression that all qualified experts agree with their theory, and that all skeptics are either biased or unqualified. The consensus-mongers have arrogated to themselves the authority to decide who is or is not an expert, and what does and does not qualify as evidence. Once this was Jedi mind-trick was accomplished, it was predictable that any data contradicting the "consensus" would be ignored or suppressed.

Remember this, the next time you hear some media elitist carping about "anti-intellectualism."

UPDATE II: Ed Morrissey quotes extensively from the Climate Research Unite e-mails, and comments:

Do scientists use data to test theories, or do they use theories to test data? . . . [H]ere we have scientists who cling to the theory so tightly that they reject the data. That’s not science; it’s religious belief.

Kind of like economists who think the Obama/Pelosi agenda will lead to recovery.

Expect further updates . . .