But, today scientists are set up as the priests of humanism, having all the answers or being able to at least find them. The arrogance spewing out of the mouths of intellectuals today is just plain galling. Yeah, I know Christians deserve it, but that doesn’t make it right. We get laughed at for living by faith all the time! And, then we see that a scientist can dream up a whole generation of pre-humans from a pig’s tooth, and even spawn the drawing of whole families of such, and gain the respect and attention of scientists! Now, who’s living by faith? And, then hiding behind the arrogance of supposed reason and scientific fact that is at least sometimes more contrived around tables with beers and cigars than in labs? So whose faith is blinder anyway?

So, I return to the subject of climatologists intentionally covering up evidence that might not support their assertion. Why would they do that? Vain ambition? Personal agendas? Not wanting to look wrong? The band-wagon? Arrogance? Or perhaps a desire to please politicians with their own personal agendas who might just be voting later on funding and grants for scientists’ projects? Surely not! Really, probably to some degree some of all of those are causal at various times. But, this recent story and its implications should definitely get the attention of those who live by faith in scientism and it scientist-priests. But, humans show the ability to mimic ostriches and stick their heads in the sand and show their proverbial back-sides, so don’t expect the recent exposure to do much to dislodge beliefs already entrenched by personal desires.

I don’t want to wade into the debate over global warming. Frankly, about everyone I hear on either side of the argument seem to sound pretty closed-minded about it and I personally don’t like to discuss anything with closed-minded people, including myself.  Demosthenes, a famous Greek orator, once said, “We believe what we want to believe.” It seems to be that regarding so many political and religious points, a position is assumed because of upbringing, lifestyles, preferences, etc., and then we simply own the argument in favor of what we want to believe to justify our position. The overall global-warming argument just seems too petty and political for my tastes. I do think we ought to take care of our world as we ought to take care of our own homes. Mankind was given the charge of taking cre of the earth from the beginning.  The earth is the home of the human family and we ought to keep it up and keep it as clean as possible—in general just take good care of it as it’s all we’ve got. But in the petty political environment, the deeper, more important issues go unaddressed, as is pretty usual. And, good, long-term science is relegated to the back seat as too many scientists and politicians jockey for attention, power, and money.  Others as well ignore what they don't want to hear that might not be such good news and might rquire change that leads to sacrifice of personal "rights" or privileges and prefences.   

So the argument in the USA, at least, is between the conservatives and liberals, and is just one more battle-line over which to express the constant friction, factiousness and contention, rather than a place to meet and solve problems to no one's glory but God's.  Scientists are willing to line up on both sides of the issue and play a boys' game of war.  All the while, the well-being of humanity lies in the balance--either now and/or the future.  But hey, what does it seem to matter?  There's pride on the line here.  And, an argument to be won.  So just make your "truth" (Biblically, morally or scientifically) be what you want it to be to win the argument!  Fudge data.  Fake data.  Fudge Scriptures.  Make up Scriptures.  Hide facts.  Appeal to emotion and human selfishness.

So, now we see that some self-appointed priests and heroes of global warming seem to have just shown themselves human. Fallible. Even having an evil side to them—a sinful nature, to use Christian terminology. Dirty politics rears its ugly head even among the scientifically sanctified! In an article published in USA Today, December 4, 2009, p. 7A, climatologist Phil Michaels is reported to have observed that, “the emails show that scientists conspired to hide evidence that contradicted their theories about global warming, and tried to prevent opposing views from being published in scientific journals.” The University of East Anglia in England is considered one of the top academic institutions in the world and its Climatic Research Unit is at the forefront of research on global warming. However, concerning important data collected over years that supported the idea of global warming, the university revealed that much of it had been “thrown out”, in other words deleted. I wonder why? The fact is, the article observes, that “Global temperatures have not increased in the past 12 years.” Strange, huh? Shady?  For sure.  Dishonest?  I think so.

Consider this quote from one of the emails from Phil Jones, the Climate Unit Director until he recently stepped down pending an investigation, “I would like to see the climate change happen so the science could be proved right.” Are you kidding me?! As to say, I want what I said would happen to happen even though it might not be happening so that it will justify the science based on the deleted data. Don't worry about the economic and social impact of important decisions being made based on this science that seems to not be so accurate.  Just fudge the data to prove your point.  Then conveniently delete it so no one can test your results as the norm in the true scientific process.  There’s no context that could justify such flagrant bias and dishonesty. Again, don’t hear me say that most scientists approach science in this way anymore than most theologians do. And let us remember, the new information just revealed was exposed by hackers, who themselves show themselves to be dishonest and who likely have their own bias.

However, I don’t believe for a minute that either is immune to hopping on band-wagons created by the accumulation of just such ideologies among the “cool and popular people” in their respective endeavors. When someone of this magnitude speaks, scientists in the field listen. Additionally, when such information is leaked albeit found out by dishonest means, many in opposition listen. It seems in this instance, when others who might have disagreed based on their own valid research wished to speak, their research was squelched and blocked!

Further, USA Today quotes another scientist in the field, Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, as having said, even after publication of the emails, “The emails do nothing to undermine the very strong scientific consensus…that tells us the Earth is warming, that warming is largely a result of human activity.” They do nothing to undermine? Really? Nothing? Well, don’t let bother your views what appears to be a huge cover-up by important scientists who collected and summarized data, deleted it, and then purportedly covered up contradicting evidence. Especially, if the cover-up helps your position, huh? So, we find that scientists are also capable of sticking their proverbial “heads in the sand” and thus exposing their own backsides!