Pay no attention to the facts behind the curtain

CEI's Iain Murray notes that in most areas of scientific endeavor, theories are constantly undergoing the rigorous process of validation and refinement.  But the prevailing wisdom in some subjects are (similar to the official version of John Kerry's tour of duty in Vietnam) meant to be accepted without question, and data contrary to the prevailing wisdom are promptly discarded or are given creative interpretations.

Scientists change their minds when data contradicts their modelsÂ?except in one area, the relatively new scientific discipline known as climatology.

If the climate models that predict massive rises in temperature over the next century are correct, the atmosphere should warm before the surface.  But atmospheric data from both satellites and weather balloons show only a trifling rise in temperature over the past couple of decades, while the surface temperature has been rising steadily.  In 2000, a National Research Council study confirmed the data's discrepancy with the model.

The proper scientific response would be to reexamine the models and adjust them to fit reality.  But that hasn't happened in climatology.  Instead, there have been repeated attempts to manipulate the satellite data fit the models.