Back in the days of silent films, the weekly thrill a minute serial kept audiences on the edge of their seats,ending each week with the heroine or the hero facing looming disaster. For the past three decades, there has been a steady claim that the earth was facing disaster unless the world’s leading economies made substantial changes in how their populations live. A year and a half ago, few people doubted the nature of the problems facing the planet. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a UN body, claimed to have all the data to support the theory that man-made climate change was occurring. Al Gore’s film, “An Inconvenient Truth” was acclaimed to be a masterpiece of science and call to action. A few folks publicly questioned the science the film was based on, but the torrents of praise seemed to rival the Amazon in volume. Who were these critics, anyway?

A year and a half later, and the critics are making points that should have been obvious. The science is NOT settled, no matter what Mr. Gore wants to say to the contrary. In fact, that remark should have had serious scientists reaching for their calculators and checking the figures. According to the media, the few who did question the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) findings were kooks, and not real scientists at all. But the movie’s been changed. It isn’t quite weekly yet, but the thriller started with the release of documents from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University in November of 2009. It seemed the science behind man-made global warming wasn’t quite so scientific after all. In fact, it looked more like something from one of those B flicks like “Plan Nine From Outer Space.” The lab had not functioned as most people understand science to be done. It appeared to have cooked the books and rigged peer review processes to support the man-made global warming theory, even when substantial evidence suggested this might not be the case.

Since the first release, more and more information came to light. The lack of compliance with Freedom of Information Requests made to the CRU. Evidence that the data that the IPCC study was based on was tainted or not available for examination increased the questions.

Now it is becoming obvious that the real scandal is that climate scientists at the IPCC and environmentalists have behaved like everyday politicians. In other words, they have rigged the results to protect their revenue sources.

The best thing the citizens of the United States can do is demand that the Marky-Waxman cap and trade bill be killed. We should demand that the US refuse to sign on to anything like the Copenhagen protocols. We should demand a proper investigation of the funding of the scientists affiliated with IPCC, and demand to see the data, and allow other, genuinely impartial scientists to see it and evaluate it.

Meanwhile, new releases of the current thriller keep coming to a computer near you. Even some of the British press have discovered what’s going on. The American media are still ignoring the corruption and incompetence at IPCC. Will the Washington Post wake up in time? Will NBC report on Phil Jones, former CRU head, admitting that they were wrong about the Medieval Warming Period? Stay tuned for the next episode!