""Dr. Murari Lal, the “scientist” who included the 2035 glacier apocalypse in the IPCC report, told Britain’s Mail on Sunday that he knew it wasn’t based on “peer-reviewed science” but “we thought we should put it in”—for political reasons.

I wonder what else is in that Nobel Peace Prize-winning report for no other reason than “we thought we should put it in.” "

ALERT! More fraud uncovered in climategate scandal

“I don't think it's healthy to dismiss proper skepticism,” says John Beddington, the chief scientific adviser to the British government. In his view, it's time to stop circling the wagons and throw open the doors.

Enough to challenge all the alarmist assertions for the last 20 years. It's not a question of whether the planet is warming as much as it is: How can you tell after finding so much data has been faked, deleted and doctored?

 With this short piece the alarmists are unmasked. Now you can know the source of the sky is falling approach. Must-read, not because of the science but because of the startling admission: ". . . evidence of a strategy explained by Stanford University professor Steven Schneider, who said, in the nascent days of the global warming movement, that to obtain media coverage and win public opinion, "[W]e have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts we might have."

GW scientists broke the law, not to mention the trust, when they hid data from those seeking it under the Freedom of Information Act. Statute of Limitations prevents prosecution. Except in the court of public opinion.

NASA Errs (intentionally?) in reporting warmest year. It's 1934, by these docs.

GW not a certainty, after all? The science is not settled? And just why is it that only Canadian and British press is reporting the uproar?

". . .  a predicted melting of the Himalayan ice fields by 2035 -- was a fraud. Not an accidental fraud, but a deliberately planted piece of science fiction. The IPCC author who planted that false Himalayan meltdown said the other day "we" did it because "we thought ... it will impact policy makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action."

Global Warming debate aside. Are more folks dying of cold than heat each year? Shouldn't we be more worried about cold and cold injuries?

NOAA Cherry-picking data. Only one station in Canada above the Arctic Circle uses. IBD says only the warm stuff is being fed to IPCC reports and passed along to media and politicians.

Floods, hurricanes, melting glaciers. IPCC guys admit trying to influence politicians with bogus alarms. Time to start worrying about an asteroid defense system instead?

Unsettling, unsourced, unstudied -- the un-science of the IPCC. Claims that more severe hurricanes and other storms were man-caused? No data. Just opinion, like the claim that Himalayan glaciers would melt. A phone interview comment, passed on by an eco-magazine, ends up as settled science. What other fake evidence is yet to be uncovered?

Conflict of interest? Raising funds on false data. And he apparently knew it.

IPPC admits mistake -- data based on a news report of a disputed statement. And even that was off by more than 300 years. IPCC admits mistake but says data was fake but accurate.

Cap'n Trade, too? "The most far-reaching effect of Scott Brown’s upset victory in the Massachusetts senatorial election is likely to be on the world’s attempts to combat global warming. It will make it very much harder for a climate and energy bill  . . ."

So much for settled science. There was no study, no science. Just speculation by one man, speculation that became part of the UN IPCC report. As the days after Climategate go by, expect more of these findings. "If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change."

"Based on the CET dataset, the global warming scare has been totally blown out of proportion by those who can benefit from the fear."

States often look to Calif. to decide green issues, either to fight, flee, or adopt. Some talk is afoot to bail on the state's Cap'n Trade. What will it mean to bills now in the Senate?

Will the Senate surrender to the EPA on greenhouse gas regulation? Sen. Murkowski, R-Alaska, wants the Senate to man up, take on EPA, and take responsibility, either to legislate or to decline legislation instead of turning decisions over to the bureaucracy.

About a primary Climategate scientist: "Mann's work has been called 'phony' and 'a shocker' and 'rubbish' by climate scientists who believe in global warming, and who are concerned that such sloppy work might undermine the legitimacy of the claim that global warming is a dangerous and alarming fact . . ."

“Since the Earth’s atmosphere is not lacking in greenhouse gases [water vapor], if the system could have increased its surface temperature it would have done so long before our emissions. It need not have waited for us to add CO2: another greenhouse gas, H2O, was already to hand in practically unlimited reservoirs in the oceans.”

The vast programme of wind turbines for which the bills are now coming in will not, by the way, avert the energy cut-offs declared last week by the national grid. Quite the opposite: as is often the case, the recent icy temperatures have been accompanied by negligible amounts of wind. If we had already decommissioned any of our fossil-fuel power stations and replaced them with wind power, we would now be facing a genuine civil emergency rather than merely inconvenience.

And these are not your everyday skeptics, either. These are IPCC experts who have measured deep ocean temps and suggest winters even worse than this one. Much worse. Lasting for decades. The entire argument about denial and skeptics is about to be stood on its head as alarmists in parkas (photo included) issue even more urgent warming warnings.

Political GW Cartoons. Ah the irony.

Need another name change. Global Warming to Climate Change isn't working out as well as alarmists had hoped. Next, we'll be hearing that Climate Change needs a name change to Pay No Attention to the Ice Behind the Curtain.

Link to two short videos places the scandal in context. Basic position of skeptics laid out in minutes. Worth a view for those who want to know point of view not played in US media. You view. You decide.

AP report on Climategate begins to look shaky. One of the reporters was also a Climategate e-mailier?

 The World Meteorological Organization is at pains to distinguish between weather and climate. “I think we have to be careful not to interpret any single event as a proof of either warming or the fact that warming has stopped,“ cautioned Secretary-General Michel Jarraud.

Ah. Where has he been? As recently as eleven months ago, when brushfires raged across Australia, the “experts” were ready with interpretations.

Here's a great story: “Climategate” may prove something of a watershed. In the battle for public opinion, global warming advocates have until now had the singular advantage of claiming that the bulk of respectable scientific opinion was on their side. If at least some of that scientific opinion is discovered to be not so respectable as all that, then it is not only their specific case that is harmed: it is science itself.

Major, peer-reviewed, science study, not relying on non-tamper-resistant computer models, reveals CO2 absorption leaves levels the same as 160 years ago. CO2, the basis of all life on earth, need not be offset. Solar activity again tied to cooling.

Might be, says accuweather.com

Hot weather is related to GW; Cold weather? Not so much. Say what?

China, India, Korea, Malta struck by Arctic weather

Worldwide Arctic Conditions

IPCC scientists say it's even worse than they thought.

Your feet wet? Do you see the pyramids? You must be in denial.

The most damaging fallout of Climategate might well be that other trusted climate warmist agencies have cooked data and will not release information to prove their claims. In this story, a scientist names NASA.

Unsettled Science

Wikipedia deletes Ice Age, Warm Period

Thomas Sowell

700+ skeptical scientists

Suppressing Peer Reviews, Journals

Siberian temps "cherrypicked"

Access research funded by Fed $$

USDA Report

Best Context Yet

Profile of Steve McIntyre

Cooling in a warm decade

Hiding the decline looks worse in context

Hip-Deep in Raccoons

A Necessary Hoax?

Scientists debate scandal, conflicts of interest

WSJ Insight: Fizzler

Deniers denying Climategate

Toxic fruit yields poison tarts

Sarah Palin on GW

Settled Science? Nope.

Penn State investigates

Scientist steps down

Aussies ditch Cap'n Trade

The latest on Climategate

"Close-minded science"

Lost Homework on GW

"Gotcha . . . they've been lying all along"

Deception, intimidation from alarmists

"Scandal of the Century"

CBO cites economic impact

Climate Policy vs. Your Pocketbook