The WaPost should’ve barred George Will from ever writing about climate change again, but I guess, in the wake of CLIMATEGATE!11!, he can’t help himself.

See if you can find the key word in this graf.

Disclosure of e-mails and documents from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) in Britain — a collaborator with the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — reveals some scientists’ willingness to suppress or massage data and rig the peer-review process and the publication of scholarly work.

That’s right. Some scientists. At one organization. But for Will, that’s enough to discredit over 40 years of research, conducted by tens of thousands of scientists and experts, all over the world.

Some climate scientists compound their delusions of intellectual adequacy with messiah complexes. They seem to suppose themselves a small clerisy entrusted with the most urgent truth ever discovered. On it, and hence on them, the planet’s fate depends. So some of them consider it virtuous to embroider facts, exaggerate certitudes, suppress inconvenient data, and manipulate the peer-review process to suppress scholarly dissent and, above all, to declare that the debate is over.

When it comes to climate change, Will is pretty good at suppressing inconvenient data and embroidering facts. But note again the use of the word “some.”

Because if it’s really just “some” — a few bad apples, as it were — why would one argue that this small minority discredits the science that’s overwhelming accepted in the scientific community?

A group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures. [...]

Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

Quoth the Will:

Political, commercial, academic and journalistic prestige and advancement can be contingent on not disrupting the (postulated) consensus that is propelling the gigantic and fabulously lucrative industry of combating global warming.

I don’t think “postulated” means what he think it means.