Debate is a healthy and needed event for human progress. Ideas are spread from one person to the next until it reaches enough of the population to make a societal shift. When conflicting ideas exist concurrently, an open atmosphere of point and counterpoint utilizing experience and data is indispensable. Unfortunately, many topics become muddled due to external factors such as power and wealth.

One such topic is human created climate change. A cursory search of various scientific sources suggests that some 97% of scientists are in agreement that humans have caused dangerous levels of climate change. But looking a bit deeper into this issue and we discover that there are hidden agendas which seem to affect the opinions of scientists and many who disagree outright.

Few will likely recall the Climategate scandal in which leaked emails showed data manipulation by scientists attempting to prove human created global warming. This week’s bumps will likely similarly be forgotten soon. Two weeks ago, Dr. Lennart Bengtsson joined the Academic Advisory Council within the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). Dr. Bengtsson is a prominent and leading climate modeler and research scientist with over forty years of experience. Unfortunately, he tendered his resignation a mere two weeks after joining the council, citing “enormous group pressure” for joining the skeptical organization.

Showing great resolve, he published a short article the following day in which he lambasted those in governmental circles which were responsible for his departure from GWPF. “It is no surprise that there are other forces that are driving rapid change,” he writes. “Because once government subsidies are involved, huge profits are available. However, before radical and hasty changes to the current energy system are implemented, there must be robust evidence that climate change is significantly detrimental. We are still far away from such evidence. It would be wrong to conclude from the report of the IPCC and similar reports that the science is settled.”

Rather than confront skeptics on the topics in question in open debate, the preferential actions seem to be marginalize, belittle, and coerce.