Climate change debate - its significance to intelligent design theory

The significance of the climate change debate to ID is not that climate change, yes or no, is a prediction of design theory.

If the universe and life forms show evidence of design, there is no particular reason why humans could not cause climate change. A design theorist would simply say, follow the evidence with an open mind.

It is not self-evident that everything modern is bad, or that there are too many people in the world living too high off the hog.

The significance is principally that it enabled many people who had never considered the matter before to see how disconfirming data can be systematically suppressed once a consensus takes hold.

That makes the people who learn about any one of a number of instances much less likely to simply assume - in another situation - that "Those scientists wouldn't do that! Science is about [fill in the blank with some earnest wish here: ___________]"

Or worse and more oily, "Do you really believe, ladies and gentlemen, that these virtuous and high-minded men and women who so diligently ... "

If O'Leary is one unit of the captive audience, persons seated nearby might hear a mutter, "Yes indeed. I do believe it. See Climategate, for example. And you're here to defend that one - or a different one? Already? Details. I need the details."

Basically, a discipline does not ennoble its practitioners. The process works the other way - or else doesn't.