Last week, a whistle-blower leaked emails that show leading climate change alarmists destroying scientific data because it refutes their global warming theories, strategizing to suppress and silence and subvert disagreeable scientists and scientific data, privately acknowledging that no global warming has occurred since 1998 (more than a decade), and strategizing on how to use propaganda to avoid having to admit that climate data universally refutes warming-prediction models. (If you haven’t heard about it, look here.) Basically, the most acclaimed scientists in all of the climate change establishment have been caught red-handed twisting the world’s most prestigious, peer-reviewed, scientific journals into tools to to advance their fraudulent conclusions and silence dissent.

I’ve been arguing for more than a decade that anthropogenic climate-change theories are bad science, starting with a paper I published back in 1994. In Devyn’s post on global warming, I argued with a group of practicing scientists who also pretended to be experts on economics, modal realism, and the basic nature of scientific laws. Unable to actually confront the argument that I advanced (comments #111 and #113), they never laid a finger on it. Some commenters, to their credit, did try to take issue with my argument, but they, like the practising scientists, demonstrated a basic misunderstanding of the nature of scientific models. Indeed, I was the only participant in the thread who was actually able to construct a model of any sort (about half-way through comment #229). Frankly, the outcome of the argument was embarrassing for both the scientists and for the state of science, yet my argumentative opponents were the “scientists,” so some people presumed that they knew what they were talking about — including them — even though they lost the argument.

Scientists do not have a monopoly on critical thought. If anthropogenic climate-change theories are any indication, then a preponderance of scientists don’t even seek to practice anything resembling critical thought. This is what gives rise to such a blatantly unscientific set of theories earning the title “settled science.” Seriously, how many soft-headed morons were taken in by this climate-change nonsense simply because they were anxious to avoid appearing anti-scientific? (a label with which I was frequently smeared, in spite of the fact that I’m a logical positivist — apparently, one can love her country and criticize its military policy, but one cannot love science and criticize anthropogenic climate-change theories).

In the end, it’s global warming that has proven to be the new anti-science: global warming is creationism for the 21st Century. But let’s be honest: when this kind of corruption occurs in the private sector, it’s called organized crime. Our candid glimpse of these climate change scientists makes them look slightly better than ACORN looked under the light of day, but only slightly. From climate change to ACORN, if you look into the organizations that prop up the policy positions of the Democrats, you’re more than likely to find unscrupulous depravity.

These climate-change scientists are thugs, and the disclosure of their emails is the most scientific development we’ve seen in climate change science in many years.