"I hate your opinions, but I would die to defend your right to express them." This famous quote by the 18th-century philosopher Voltaire applies to Climategate, the current global warming scandal.

As leaders of 192 nations meet this week in Copenhagen, Denmark to outline a new global climate change agreement, debate rages concerning the veracity of scientific data supporting global warming. Global warming proponents are convinced that human activity is causing the earth’s temperature to rise to an alarming level; skeptics dispute that global warming is taking place—and even if it is, are nonetheless not convinced that this is a man-made occurrence.

The debate is further embroiled by revelations by Britain’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) which has admitted to eliminating a substantial amount of the raw temperature data on which their assessments of global warming are based. CRU is a renowned research center specializing in climate change. Many of CRU’s findings were pivotal in shaping the policies adopted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Established in 1988 by the United Nations, the IPCC is known for aggressively promoting policies in favor of climate change. Its findings led to the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 which aimed at reducing greenhouse gases across the globe.

In late November, a computer hacker exposed hundreds of e-mails and other data from the CRU, proving that scientists had conspired to hide evidence that global warming is not as serious a threat as claimed by the IPCC. Among the e-mails leaked was one by CRU Director Phil Jones who mentions a “trick” to “hide the decline” in a chart showing global temperatures. Another e-mail cites how Mr. Jones and another scientist might boycott the academic journal, Climate Research, since they agreed to publish an article that was skeptical of man-made global warming. These latest revelations jeopardize the integrity and objectivity of scientific research.

Democrats and the Environmental Protection Agency have been staunchly promoting climate change policy based on the ICPP report that uses data produced by the CRU. Unfortunately, it appears that science is now being used by Democrats and leftist elites to promote radical left-wing policies such as the cap and trade bill that is currently stalled in the U.S. Congress.

Scientific institutions have a moral obligation to conduct impartial research, without injecting their own ideology into the data. Scientists are also obliged to disseminate information that is vital to the public so that an honest and open debate can occur. In democratic nations, the people have a right to make decisions based on legitimate scientific evidence—especially when the scientific evidence in question has broad implications, including passing legislation that will have profound economic consequences.

If the American government develops policies that are based on “false facts,” it risks misdiagnosing the real problem and dismissing adequate solutions. For example, Nathan Myhrvold, formerly Chief Technology Officer at Microsoft who is featured in the best-seller Superfreakonomics by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, argues that geo-engineering can be used to mitigate the effect of greenhouse gases on the climate without reducing fossil fuel use. This is a viable option that would not negatively impact the economy like cap and trade which would raise the cost of energies that emit carbon dioxide, resulting in higher electricity costs.

Scientific research has been the bedrock of improving our civilization and making America the great nation that it is. As Richard Weaver noted in Ideas Have Consequences, the beginning of Western decline is the rejection of absolute truth. Climategate reveals the systematic efforts by some of the world's leading global warming alarmist scientists to squelch truth and prevent a well-informed debate in schools, the media and government agencies.

In short, the belief that objective scientific evidence should be presented, no matter how controversial, is not a conservative or a liberal position; rather, it is a pro-science, pro-learning position. Let us not allow political correctness and radical ideologues to thwart scientific research. Excellence in the lab requires an iron commitment to follow the evidence, without prejudice, regardless of where the facts lead.