There is only one goddess Gaia and Al Gore is her only prophet...

[kandrathe]

Now these are just plain lies.

I don't think I've seen a clearer case of academic prejudice. The truth is right there. Look.

P.S.

Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion

The above article discusses some other factors which certain leading scientists have engaged, such as a lack of transparency and willingness to release your research to be peer reviewed by critics. Also, choosing only to share their information with other like minded scientists (the true believers) who also would conspire to protect the status quo.

Then, in response to Freedom of Information requests (under the British legal system) the scientists seemed to conspire to evade. Which, also beyond unethical, might be a crime and punishable by a fine.

P.S.S.

Another take on the issue; http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/11/th...ence_emails.php

<blockquote>"The emails seem to describe a model which frequently breaks, and being constantly "tweaked" with manual interventions of dubious quality in order to make them fit the historical data. These stories suggest that the model, and the past manual interventions, are so poorly documented that CRU cannot now replicate its own past findings.

That is a big problem. The IPCC report, which is the most widely relied upon in policy circles, uses this model to estimate the costs of global warming. If those costs are unreliable, then any cost-benefit analysis is totally worthless."</blockquote>

It seems the very heart of the IPCC conclusions relied on this flawed hockey stick model, which was derived by faulty means and never allowed to be critically reviewed.