The global warming debate has changed course somewhat this past week. Hats off again to the Daily Mail for exposing the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University for their internal email exchanges which uncovered the tampering of data to suit their political ends.

As we approach the Copenhagen summit and hold our collective breath waiting to see what draconian measures our policy makers may impose on us (as they all compete with each other to appear more green than the next man), the timing of this exposé will no doubt be dismissed by the green lobby as a red herring.

It is important though for our politicians to appreciate, before they make irreversible (and expensive) decisions, that much of the data behind their preconceptions is flawed.

Many of the conclusions drawn by the IPCC, which get thrown at us by politicians from across the political spectrum, are based on the “data” from the CRU – data that has now been so spectacularly discredited.

The problem has arisen because the green scientists are compiling the data with preconceived notions of what the data should show. My days in the science lab were structured so that we had a goal of proving or disproving a theory by testing properly gathered data and then using that data to prove or disprove the theory accordingly.

The CRU it appears had already decided what the outcome of their investigations was going to be. But when the data inconveniently belied their position they simply chose to ignore whatever data didn’t fit their preconceptions.

The global mean temperature peaked in 1998 and since then has generally been going down, apart from 2005 where it went up again briefly. But instead of acknowledging this fact they simply “assumed” the data was flawed. Why not assume the data for the previous 10 years was flawed?

The first decade of the 21st Century has seen a gradual decline in mean global temperatures – this is an acknowledged fact. Worldwide CO2 emissions have been increasing year on year throughout this period – this is an acknowledged fact. So why are our policy makers still so absorbed in the CO2 = man made global warming argument?

Why aren’t any of them starting to publicly question this position? If nothing else they should at least be saying publicly “We need to take a closer look at the evidence before we commit to spending billions of tax revenue on ever increasing emission reduction targets.”

Personally, I believe we need to concentrate on reducing emissions from power stations because the fuel source is a finite resource. Energy is becoming scarcer and more expensive so it naturally makes sense to reduce consumption where we can. As this happily coincides with the green agenda I’ve been happy to go along with some of their desires.

But, as always, you give an inch they take a mile. The politicians trying to out green each other don’t seem to understand the big picture or the reality of the issue. If CO2 emissions were really reduced to the levels some of them are publicly calling for, there could be real danger to plant life that needs CO2 to thrive.

More importantly, their entire reason for the draconian cuts is because of their presumption of the link between CO2 emissions and global warming. This is now clearly in doubt. It is time for the politicians to take a step back and speak to scientists who still have their integrity intact.

Don’t hold your breath though. The nanny state doesn’t admit mistakes.