Changes

The Climategate scandal revealed that corruption of climate science is a worldwide problem and is not confined to just Britain’s CRU climate research centre.  For instance, it was discovered that the reported [[warming trend]] in [[New Zealand]] over the past 156 years (from 1853 to 2008) was created by man-made adjustments of the temperature data.<ref>P.J. Gladnick. [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/11/26/climategate-scandal-spreads-new-zealand-msm-continues-ostrich-act Climategate Scandal Spreads to New Zealand as MSM Continues Ostrich Act], ''[[NewsBusters]]'', November 26, 2009.</ref> The centerpiece of New Zealand's ''National Institute of Water & Atmospheric'' research temperature claims were proven false.<ref>The revelations were published on November 25, 2009, from ''The Climate Science Coalition'' of NZ: [http://www.climatescience.org.nz/images/PDFs/global_warming_nz2.pdf PDF] A paper collated by Richard Treadgold, of the ''Climate Conversation Group'', from a combined research project undertaken by members of the ''Climate Conversation Group'' and the [[New Zealand]] ''Climate Science Coalition''.</ref> This data contributes to global temperature statistics and the climate science reports by the [[IPCC]].  The false data was used by the [[Obama administration]] as a reason for remaining insistently stubborn on participating in the climate conference in [[Copenhagen]] in 2009-10.

The Climategate scandal revealed that corruption of climate science is a worldwide problem and is not confined to just Britain’s CRU climate research centre.  For instance, it was discovered that the reported [[warming trend]] in [[New Zealand]] over the past 156 years (from 1853 to 2008) was created by man-made adjustments of the temperature data.<ref>P.J. Gladnick. [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/11/26/climategate-scandal-spreads-new-zealand-msm-continues-ostrich-act Climategate Scandal Spreads to New Zealand as MSM Continues Ostrich Act], ''[[NewsBusters]]'', November 26, 2009.</ref> The centerpiece of New Zealand's ''National Institute of Water & Atmospheric'' research temperature claims were proven false.<ref>The revelations were published on November 25, 2009, from ''The Climate Science Coalition'' of NZ: [http://www.climatescience.org.nz/images/PDFs/global_warming_nz2.pdf PDF] A paper collated by Richard Treadgold, of the ''Climate Conversation Group'', from a combined research project undertaken by members of the ''Climate Conversation Group'' and the [[New Zealand]] ''Climate Science Coalition''.</ref> This data contributes to global temperature statistics and the climate science reports by the [[IPCC]].  The false data was used by the [[Obama administration]] as a reason for remaining insistently stubborn on participating in the climate conference in [[Copenhagen]] in 2009-10.

The CRU scientists deliberately falsified data, and then used the results of the falsification to obtain additional research funding.  This is [[criminal]] [[fraud]] under [[English]] [[Law]]. Because of the worldwide fraud revealed from Climategate and the burden it caused to the global scientific community, on December 01, 2009, [[Phil Jones]], the director of the embattled Climatic Research Unit in the [[United Kingdom]] stepped down pending investigations into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578486,00.html Facing Scandal, Head of Climate Research Lab to Temporarily Step Down], ''[[Fox News]]'', December 02, 2009.</ref> On January 28, 2010, from the ''London Times'', inquiry over the Climategate emails found Phil Jones broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny.<ref>Ben Webster, Environment Editor, and Jonathan Leake. [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7004936.ece Scientists in stolen e-mail scandal hid climate data], ''The London Times'', January 28, 2010.</ref> [[Michael Mann]] was investigated by [[Pennsylvania State University]].<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/03/penn-st-investigating-scientist-research-misconduct/ Penn St. Investigating Scientist Over Research Misconduct], FOXNews.com, Updated: February 03, 2010.</ref>

The CRU scientists deliberately falsified data, and then used the results of the falsification to obtain additional research funding.  This is [[criminal]] [[fraud]] under [[English]] [[Law]]. Because of the worldwide fraud revealed from Climategate and the burden it caused to the global scientific community, on December 1, 2009, [[Phil Jones]], the director of the embattled Climatic Research Unit in the [[United Kingdom]] stepped down pending investigations into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578486,00.html Facing Scandal, Head of Climate Research Lab to Temporarily Step Down], ''[[Fox News]]'', December 02, 2009.</ref> On January 28, 2010, from the ''London Times'', inquiry over the Climategate emails found Phil Jones broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny.<ref>Ben Webster, Environment Editor, and Jonathan Leake. [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7004936.ece Scientists in stolen e-mail scandal hid climate data], ''The London Times'', January 28, 2010.</ref> [[Michael Mann]] was investigated by [[Pennsylvania State University]].<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/03/penn-st-investigating-scientist-research-misconduct/ Penn St. Investigating Scientist Over Research Misconduct], FOXNews.com, Updated: February 03, 2010.</ref>

Climategate fraud also extended to the [[United States]], and the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) had their attorneys file three Notices of Intent to File Suit against [[NASA]]. Chris Horner, representing CEI, said the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies failed to comply with the Freedom of Information Act for over three years.<ref>Tony Pann. [http://www.examiner.com/x-11224-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m11d25-Climategate-CEI-to-sue-NASA-Goddard-for-Climate-Change-fraud Climategate: CEI to sue NASA Goddard for Climate Change fraud], ''Baltimore Weather Examiner'', November 25, 2009.</ref> The Climategate emails, originating from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, showed how all the data centers worldwide, including NOAA and NASA, conspired in the manipulation of global temperature records to suggest that temperatures in the 20th century rose faster than they actually did.<ref>Joseph D'Aleo. [http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-noaa-and-nasa-complicit-in-data-manipulation/ Climategate: NOAA and NASA Complicit in Data Manipulation], ''[[Pajamas Media]]'', January 29, 2010.</ref> NASA's two primary climate centers, the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) in Asheville, [[North Carolina|N.C.]], and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at [[Columbia University]] in [[New York City]], "systematically eliminated 75% of the world's stations with a clear bias toward removing higher-latitude, high-altitude and rural locations."<ref>[http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=518890 A U.S. ClimateGate?], Investors.com, January 22, 2010.</ref>  

Climategate fraud also extended to the [[United States]], and the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) had their attorneys file three Notices of Intent to File Suit against [[NASA]]. Chris Horner, representing CEI, said the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies failed to comply with the Freedom of Information Act for over three years.<ref>Tony Pann. [http://www.examiner.com/x-11224-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m11d25-Climategate-CEI-to-sue-NASA-Goddard-for-Climate-Change-fraud Climategate: CEI to sue NASA Goddard for Climate Change fraud], ''Baltimore Weather Examiner'', November 25, 2009.</ref> The Climategate emails, originating from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, showed how all the data centers worldwide, including NOAA and NASA, conspired in the manipulation of global temperature records to suggest that temperatures in the 20th century rose faster than they actually did.<ref>Joseph D'Aleo. [http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-noaa-and-nasa-complicit-in-data-manipulation/ Climategate: NOAA and NASA Complicit in Data Manipulation], ''[[Pajamas Media]]'', January 29, 2010.</ref> NASA's two primary climate centers, the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) in Asheville, [[North Carolina|N.C.]], and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at [[Columbia University]] in [[New York City]], "systematically eliminated 75% of the world's stations with a clear bias toward removing higher-latitude, high-altitude and rural locations."<ref>[http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=518890 A U.S. ClimateGate?], Investors.com, January 22, 2010.</ref>  

The CRU scientists, from the Climategate emails, on several occasions discussed methods of subverting the scientific [[peer review]] process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication. As scientific data began showing a downtrend after 2001, the Climategate emails show a [[criminal]] intent to create fraudulent data, and defraud the public of massive amounts of money with a [[cap and trade]] scheme as part of a Global Warming movement. Climate scientists at the CRU worked to circumvent the Freedom of Information Act process in the UK. The Freedom of Information Act explicitly forbids deletion of any material subject to a [[FOIA]] request. The penalty for such a criminal act is a fine of up to £5,000. Presumably being found guilty of such an act, or even suggesting it, would also bring about significant disciplinary procedures at any reputable [[university]].

The CRU scientists, from the Climategate emails, on several occasions discussed methods of subverting the scientific [[peer review]] process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication. As scientific data began showing a downtrend after 2001, the Climategate emails show a [[criminal]] intent to create fraudulent data, and defraud the public of massive amounts of money with a [[cap and trade]] scheme as part of a Global Warming movement. Climate scientists at the CRU worked to circumvent the Freedom of Information Act process in the UK. The Freedom of Information Act explicitly forbids deletion of any material subject to a [[FOIA]] request. The penalty for such a criminal act is a fine of up to £5,000. Presumably being found guilty of such an act, or even suggesting it, would also bring about significant disciplinary procedures at any reputable [[university]].

The ''CBC’s'' Rex Murphy discussed Climategate in an editorial on December 03, 2009.

The ''CBC’s'' Rex Murphy discussed Climategate in an editorial on December 3, 2009.

{{cquote|...Climate science has shown to be, in part, a sub-branch of climate politics. It is a situation intolerable even to serious minds who are on side with Global warming. Such as Clive Crook, who wrote in Atlantic magazine about this scandal as follows: 'the stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering'. Climate science needs its own reset button. And Climategate should be seen not primarily as a set-back, but as an opportunity to cleanse scientific method, to take science away from politics, good causes and alarmists. And vest climate science in bodies of guaranteed neutrality, openness, real in vigorous debate; and away from the lobbyists, the advocates, the Gore's, and professional environmentalists of all kinds. Too many of the current leadership on Global warming are more players than observers, gatekeepers and not investigators, angry partisans of some global engineering, rather than the humble servants of the facts of the case. Read the e-mails, you'll never think of climate science quite the same way again.<ref>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/03/you-wouldnt-accept-that-at-a-grade-9-science-fair-cbc-finds-a-moment-of-clarity/ “You wouldn’t accept that at a grade 9 science fair…” – CBC finds a moment of clarity on Climategate], ''WUWT'', December 03, 2009.</ref><ref>Clive Crook, senior editor of ''The Atlantic Monthly'' and former deputy editor of ''The Economist'': "The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to me. The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering. And this scandal is not at the margins of the politicized Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change process. It goes to the core of that process." [http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/03/climategate-fallout.aspx Climategate fallout], ''[[National Post]]'',  December 03, 2009.</ref>}}

{{cquote|...Climate science has shown to be, in part, a sub-branch of climate politics. It is a situation intolerable even to serious minds who are on side with Global warming. Such as Clive Crook, who wrote in Atlantic magazine about this scandal as follows: 'the stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering'. Climate science needs its own reset button. And Climategate should be seen not primarily as a set-back, but as an opportunity to cleanse scientific method, to take science away from politics, good causes and alarmists. And vest climate science in bodies of guaranteed neutrality, openness, real in vigorous debate; and away from the lobbyists, the advocates, the Gore's, and professional environmentalists of all kinds. Too many of the current leadership on Global warming are more players than observers, gatekeepers and not investigators, angry partisans of some global engineering, rather than the humble servants of the facts of the case. Read the e-mails, you'll never think of climate science quite the same way again.<ref>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/03/you-wouldnt-accept-that-at-a-grade-9-science-fair-cbc-finds-a-moment-of-clarity/ “You wouldn’t accept that at a grade 9 science fair…” – CBC finds a moment of clarity on Climategate], ''WUWT'', December 03, 2009.</ref><ref>Clive Crook, senior editor of ''The Atlantic Monthly'' and former deputy editor of ''The Economist'': "The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to me. The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering. And this scandal is not at the margins of the politicized Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change process. It goes to the core of that process." [http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/03/climategate-fallout.aspx Climategate fallout], ''[[National Post]]'',  December 03, 2009.</ref>}}

[[Iain Murray]] at ''Pajamas Media'' pointed out three takeaways that people must know about Climategate.<ref name=3things/>

[[Iain Murray]] at ''Pajamas Media'' pointed out three takeaways that people must know about Climategate.<ref name=3things/>

<blockquote>

<blockquote>

#First, the scientists discuss manipulating data to get their preferred results. The most prominently featured scientists are [[Paleoclimatology|paleoclimatologists]], who reconstruct historical temperatures and who were responsible for a series of reconstructions that seemed to show a sharp rise in [[temperature|temperatures]] well above historical variation in recent decades.

#First, the scientists discuss manipulating data to get their preferred results. The most prominently featured scientists are [[Paleoclimatology|paleoclimatologists]], who reconstruct historical temperatures and who were responsible for a series of reconstructions that seemed to show a sharp rise in [[temperature]]s well above historical variation in recent decades.

#Secondly, scientists on several occasions discussed methods of subverting the scientific [[peer review]] process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication. In 2003, [[Tom Wigley]] of the University Corporation for [[Atmosphere|Atmospheric]] Research in Boulder, [[Colorado]], complained that paleoclimatologist [[Hans von Storch]] was responsible for “the publication of crap science ‘in order to stimulate debate’” and that they “must get rid of von Storch” ([http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=307&filename=1051190249.txt 1051190249]) as an editor of the journal Climate Research (he indeed subsequently resigned).

#Secondly, scientists on several occasions discussed methods of subverting the scientific [[peer review]] process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication. In 2003, [[Tom Wigley]] of the University Corporation for [[Atmosphere|Atmospheric]] Research in Boulder, [[Colorado]], complained that paleoclimatologist [[Hans von Storch]] was responsible for “the publication of crap science ‘in order to stimulate debate’” and that they “must get rid of von Storch” ([http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=307&filename=1051190249.txt 1051190249]) as an editor of the journal Climate Research (he indeed subsequently resigned).

#Finally, the scientists worked to circumvent the [[Freedom of Information Act|Freedom of Information]] process of the United Kingdom.<ref>[http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=893&filename=1212073451.txt Alleged CRU Email - 1212073451.txt]</ref><ref>[http://www.climate-gate.org/email.php?eid=490&keyword= Email - Re: For your eyes only]</ref>

#Finally, the scientists worked to circumvent the [[Freedom of Information Act|Freedom of Information]] process of the United Kingdom.<ref>[http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=893&filename=1212073451.txt Alleged CRU Email - 1212073451.txt]</ref><ref>[http://www.climate-gate.org/email.php?eid=490&keyword= Email - Re: For your eyes only]</ref>

{{cquote|First and foremost, this doesn’t necessarily prove anything about global warming as science. It just shows that all of the data that was the chief result of most of the environmental legislation created over the last decade was a farce. This means that all of those billions of dollars we spent as a global community to combat global warming may have been for nothing. If news station anchors and politicians were trained as engineers, they would be able to find real proof and not just speculate about the meaning of emails that only made it appear as if something illegal happened.<ref name=codeproof/>}}

{{cquote|First and foremost, this doesn’t necessarily prove anything about global warming as science. It just shows that all of the data that was the chief result of most of the environmental legislation created over the last decade was a farce. This means that all of those billions of dollars we spent as a global community to combat global warming may have been for nothing. If news station anchors and politicians were trained as engineers, they would be able to find real proof and not just speculate about the meaning of emails that only made it appear as if something illegal happened.<ref name=codeproof/>}}

On December 05, 2009, Robert Greiner pointed out the four most frequent concerns dealing with the CRU’s source code uncovered from Climategate:<ref name=codepart2>Robert Greiner. [http://cubeantics.com/2009/12/climategate-code-analysis-part-2/ Climategate Code Analysis Part 2], ''Cube Antics'', December 05, 2009.</ref>

On December 5, 2009, Robert Greiner pointed out the four most frequent concerns dealing with the CRU’s source code uncovered from Climategate:<ref name=codepart2>Robert Greiner. [http://cubeantics.com/2009/12/climategate-code-analysis-part-2/ Climategate Code Analysis Part 2], ''Cube Antics'', December 05, 2009.</ref>

<blockquote>

<blockquote>

:1. The source code that actually printed the graph was commented out and, therefore, is not valid proof.

:1. The source code that actually printed the graph was commented out and, therefore, is not valid proof.

*[http://www.image.ucar.edu/~boli/manuscripts/2007-LNA-TeA.pdf The ‘hockey stick’ and the 1990s: a statistical perspective on reconstructing hemispheric temperatures] by Bo Li, Douglas W. Nychka and Casper M. Ammann, ''Institute for Mathmatics Applied to Geosciences''; (Manuscript received 22 March 2007; in final form 28 June 2007).

*[http://www.image.ucar.edu/~boli/manuscripts/2007-LNA-TeA.pdf The ‘hockey stick’ and the 1990s: a statistical perspective on reconstructing hemispheric temperatures] by Bo Li, Douglas W. Nychka and Casper M. Ammann, ''Institute for Mathmatics Applied to Geosciences''; (Manuscript received 22 March 2007; in final form 28 June 2007).

*[http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/IceCoreSprg97.pdf Ice Core Data Show No Carbon Dioxide Increase] by Zbigniew Jaworowski, Ph.D., Spring 1997; this article examines one of the main pillars of the global warming thesis.

*[http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/IceCoreSprg97.pdf Ice Core Data Show No Carbon Dioxide Increase] by Zbigniew Jaworowski, Ph.D., Spring 1997; this article examines one of the main pillars of the global warming thesis.

*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.ee.2005.pdf The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications] (''Energy & Environment'', vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.ee.2005.pdf The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications] (''Energy & Environment'', vol. 16, no. 1, pp.&nbsp;69–100, January 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.grl.2005.pdf Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance] (''Geophysical Research Letters'', vol. 32, February 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.grl.2005.pdf Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance] (''Geophysical Research Letters'', vol. 32, February 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

</small>

</small>

''An Inconvenient Truth'' inspired fear using junk science; Gore spread [[alarmist]] [[propaganda]] and claimed burning fossil fuels such as [[coal]], [[gas]] and [[oil]] have dramatically increased the Earth's temperatures. Scientific inaccuracies in the film were enhanced with [[Hollywood]] special effects, as a deceptive tactic, to spread fear of doom on his one-sided account of the anthropogenic global warming theory. Most notably, Al Gore created a scene in his movie that shows the [[Antarctic]] ice shelf breaking up and virtually disintegrating, supposedly providing visual evidence to back up his claim that glaciers are melting. The problem is that it wasn't real ice melting. It was styrofoam.<ref>[http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2005744/posts Al Gore Fakes It], ''Free Republic'', April 23, 2008.</ref> ''[[ABC News]]'' reported Al Gore also took footage of digitally enhanced melting ice from the fictional movie, ''The Day After Tomorrow'', and then used it in his schlockumentary. The real truth behind this hoax is ideology, motivated by money and power.<ref>Steve Rowitt, Th.M., Ph.D. [http://www.creationstudies.org/operationsalt/global_warming_hoax.html Global Warming: The Biggest Hoax of the 21st Century], creationstudies.org, (2010).</ref><ref>Cliff Mason. [http://www.cnbc.com/id/28317874 War On Climate Change Over—And It Won], ''[[CNBC]]'', December 19, 2008.</ref>

''An Inconvenient Truth'' inspired fear using junk science; Gore spread [[alarmist]] [[propaganda]] and claimed burning fossil fuels such as [[coal]], [[gas]] and [[oil]] have dramatically increased the Earth's temperatures. Scientific inaccuracies in the film were enhanced with [[Hollywood]] special effects, as a deceptive tactic, to spread fear of doom on his one-sided account of the anthropogenic global warming theory. Most notably, Al Gore created a scene in his movie that shows the [[Antarctic]] ice shelf breaking up and virtually disintegrating, supposedly providing visual evidence to back up his claim that glaciers are melting. The problem is that it wasn't real ice melting. It was styrofoam.<ref>[http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2005744/posts Al Gore Fakes It], ''Free Republic'', April 23, 2008.</ref> ''[[ABC News]]'' reported Al Gore also took footage of digitally enhanced melting ice from the fictional movie, ''The Day After Tomorrow'', and then used it in his schlockumentary. The real truth behind this hoax is ideology, motivated by money and power.<ref>Steve Rowitt, Th.M., Ph.D. [http://www.creationstudies.org/operationsalt/global_warming_hoax.html Global Warming: The Biggest Hoax of the 21st Century], creationstudies.org, (2010).</ref><ref>Cliff Mason. [http://www.cnbc.com/id/28317874 War On Climate Change Over—And It Won], ''[[CNBC]]'', December 19, 2008.</ref>

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in its 2007 benchmark report that even a slight change in rainfall could see swathes of the rain forest rapidly replaced by savanna grassland. However, the aftermath of Climategate forced the United Nations climate watchdog to admit to intentionally publishing false claims; the IPCC claims about melting ice in the [[Alps]], the [[Andes]], and in [[Africa]] did not come from [[peer review|peer reviewed]] scientific literature—but from ''Climbing Magazine'', and from a student dissertation—written by a [[climate change]] [[activist]] who was studying for a degree in [[Geography]].<ref>[[Glenn Beck]]. [http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/35784/ Exclusive: Yet another climategate?], ''The Glenn Beck Program'', February 1, 2010.</ref> The IPCC claims that global warming might wipe out 40% of the [[Amazon River|Amazon]] [[Forest|rainforest]] was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise.<ref>Jonathan Leake. [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009705.ece UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim], ''[[The Sunday Times]]'', January 31, 2010.</ref><ref>Richard Gray. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article], Telegraph.co.uk, January 30, 2010.</ref>  

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in its 2007 benchmark report that even a slight change in rainfall could see swathes of the rain forest rapidly replaced by savanna grassland. However, the aftermath of Climategate forced the United Nations climate watchdog to admit to intentionally publishing false claims; the IPCC claims about melting ice in the [[Alps]], the [[Andes]], and in [[Africa]] did not come from [[peer review]]ed scientific literature—but from ''Climbing Magazine'', and from a student dissertation—written by a [[climate change]] [[activist]] who was studying for a degree in [[Geography]].<ref>[[Glenn Beck]]. [http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/35784/ Exclusive: Yet another climategate?], ''The Glenn Beck Program'', February 1, 2010.</ref> The IPCC claims that global warming might wipe out 40% of the [[Amazon River|Amazon]] [[Forest|rainforest]] was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise.<ref>Jonathan Leake. [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009705.ece UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim], ''[[The Sunday Times]]'', January 31, 2010.</ref><ref>Richard Gray. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article], Telegraph.co.uk, January 30, 2010.</ref>  

[[Greenpeace]] leader [[Gerd Leipold]] admitted that his organization issued misleading statements about man-made global warming, and he said the organization exaggerated information when it claimed that [[Arctic]] [[ice]] would disappear completely by 2030.<ref>Paul Joseph Watson. [http://www.infowars.com/greenpeace-leader-admits-organization-put-out-fake-global-warming-data/ Greenpeace Leader Admits Organization Put Out Fake Global Warming Data], ''Info Wars'', August 20, 2009.</ref> Despite the admission that a panel report warning [[Himalayan]] [[glaciers]] could be gone by 2035 was hundreds of years off, and regardless of the fraud, deceit and lies the Greenpeace organization spread about global warming, Gerd Leipold said he would not resign.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583711,00.html U.N. Climate Change Expert Cites More Errors in Report], ''[[Fox News]]'', January 25, 2010.</ref>

[[Greenpeace]] leader [[Gerd Leipold]] admitted that his organization issued misleading statements about man-made global warming, and he said the organization exaggerated information when it claimed that [[Arctic]] [[ice]] would disappear completely by 2030.<ref>Paul Joseph Watson. [http://www.infowars.com/greenpeace-leader-admits-organization-put-out-fake-global-warming-data/ Greenpeace Leader Admits Organization Put Out Fake Global Warming Data], ''Info Wars'', August 20, 2009.</ref> Despite the admission that a panel report warning [[Himalayan]] [[glaciers]] could be gone by 2035 was hundreds of years off, and regardless of the fraud, deceit and lies the Greenpeace organization spread about global warming, Gerd Leipold said he would not resign.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583711,00.html U.N. Climate Change Expert Cites More Errors in Report], ''[[Fox News]]'', January 25, 2010.</ref>

Further analysis of the word "trick" and how it was used in the Climategate emails from the CRU provided interesting feedback. It showed that CRU did indeed truncate tree ring data, so that the real decline in global temperature is not shown in the [[IPCC]] report, as referenced by Steve McIntyre.<ref>Steve McIntyre. [http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/#more-9483 IPCC and the “Trick”], climateaudit.org, December 10, 2009.</ref> McIntyre brought this to attention as an expert reviewer in the IPCC process in 2005, but at the time of inquiry his dissent was stifled and the discussion was never presented to external peer reviewers.

Further analysis of the word "trick" and how it was used in the Climategate emails from the CRU provided interesting feedback. It showed that CRU did indeed truncate tree ring data, so that the real decline in global temperature is not shown in the [[IPCC]] report, as referenced by Steve McIntyre.<ref>Steve McIntyre. [http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/#more-9483 IPCC and the “Trick”], climateaudit.org, December 10, 2009.</ref> McIntyre brought this to attention as an expert reviewer in the IPCC process in 2005, but at the time of inquiry his dissent was stifled and the discussion was never presented to external peer reviewers.

The explanation for the use of the word "trick" came quickly from CRU director Dr. Phil Jones in his official announcement on November 23rd. He claimed, "The word ‘trick’ was used here colloquially as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward." If Dr. Jones used such colloquialisms regularly, it stood to reason that further analysis should find a number of similar instances of the word "trick" in the CRU Climategate emails over the decade that the emails spanned. A file search program with a simple mission to scan the email folders for all file content with instances of the word "trick" used by itself (excluding other words like "Patrick" that would have "trick" embedded in it) returned eight files with that condition:<ref name=trickcount>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/10/counting-cru-tricks/ Counting CRU “tricks”], ''WUWT'', December 10, 2009.</ref>

The explanation for the use of the word "trick" came quickly from CRU director Dr. Phil Jones in his official announcement on November 23. He claimed, "The word ‘trick’ was used here colloquially as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward." If Dr. Jones used such colloquialisms regularly, it stood to reason that further analysis should find a number of similar instances of the word "trick" in the CRU Climategate emails over the decade that the emails spanned. A file search program with a simple mission to scan the email folders for all file content with instances of the word "trick" used by itself (excluding other words like "Patrick" that would have "trick" embedded in it) returned eight files with that condition:<ref name=trickcount>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/10/counting-cru-tricks/ Counting CRU “tricks”], ''WUWT'', December 10, 2009.</ref>

<small>

<small>

===Wikipedia===

===Wikipedia===

Lawrence Solomon from the ''[[National Post]]'' discovered from the Climategate emails how a small band of [[Climatologist|climatologists]] plotted to rewrite history as well as science, particularly by eliminating the [[Medieval Warm Period]].<ref>[http://www.climate-gate.org/search.php?keyword=Wikipedia&submit=Search Search - Wikipedia], climate-gate.org, Climategate Document Database.</ref> The Climategate emails revealed the enlistment of [[Wikipedia]] in their attempt at rewriting history. It was revealed how Wikipedia’s "green doctor," a U.K. scientist and [[Green Party]] activist, rewrote 5,428 climate articles. The recruited [[Wikipedia]] administrator, [[William M. Connolley|William Connolley]], literally rewrote history and then abused his administrative privileges to stifle criticism of the global warming orthodoxy.<ref>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/19/wikibullies-at-work-the-national-post-exposes-broad-trust-issues-over-wikipedia-climate-information/ Wikibullies at work. The National Post exposes Wikipedia climate information], ''WUWT'', December 19, 2009.</ref> Lawrence Solomon wrote on this revelation and on Wikipedia's loss of [[integrity]] as a source of factual information, and on the clear abuse of power from administrative authorities within Wikipedia:

Lawrence Solomon from the ''[[National Post]]'' discovered from the Climategate emails how a small band of [[climatologist]]s plotted to rewrite history as well as science, particularly by eliminating the [[Medieval Warm Period]].<ref>[http://www.climate-gate.org/search.php?keyword=Wikipedia&submit=Search Search - Wikipedia], climate-gate.org, Climategate Document Database.</ref> The Climategate emails revealed the enlistment of [[Wikipedia]] in their attempt at rewriting history. It was revealed how Wikipedia’s "green doctor," a U.K. scientist and [[Green Party]] activist, rewrote 5,428 climate articles. The recruited [[Wikipedia]] administrator, [[William M. Connolley|William Connolley]], literally rewrote history and then abused his administrative privileges to stifle criticism of the global warming orthodoxy.<ref>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/19/wikibullies-at-work-the-national-post-exposes-broad-trust-issues-over-wikipedia-climate-information/ Wikibullies at work. The National Post exposes Wikipedia climate information], ''WUWT'', December 19, 2009.</ref> Lawrence Solomon wrote on this revelation and on Wikipedia's loss of [[integrity]] as a source of factual information, and on the clear abuse of power from administrative authorities within Wikipedia:

{{cquote|Starting in February 2003, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period. All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions.<ref>Lawrence Solomon. [http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/19/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx Lawrence Solomon: Wikipedia’s climate doctor], ''[[National Post]]'',  December 19, 2009.</ref>}}

{{cquote|Starting in February 2003, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period. All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions.<ref>Lawrence Solomon. [http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/19/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx Lawrence Solomon: Wikipedia’s climate doctor], ''[[National Post]]'',  December 19, 2009.</ref>}}

The Climategate media coverage refers to the journalistic methods used by the the Mainstream media to deceive the public from learning more specific details about the fraudulent climate data. Climategate media coverage of the scandal is a [[media]]-focused overview from the most notable discussions covering Climategate: the revealed data, e-mails and manipulated code sets. As details emerged from the Climategate scandal, Climatic Research Unit scientists at the University of East Anglia were exposed. Despite the significance of the scandal and its impact on climate science, the leftist media ignored it, and then focused on pushing forward with the [[global warming]] [[hoax]].<ref name=climatehoax>[[Rush Limbaugh]]. [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_120809/content/01125110.guest.html Hoax: Climate Change Makes Polar Bears Turn to Cannibalism], RushLimbaugh.com, December 8, 2009.</ref> Coverage of Climategate showed just how [[bias]] the [[liberal media]] has become in order to advance an environmental agenda.  

The Climategate media coverage refers to the journalistic methods used by the the Mainstream media to deceive the public from learning more specific details about the fraudulent climate data. Climategate media coverage of the scandal is a [[media]]-focused overview from the most notable discussions covering Climategate: the revealed data, e-mails and manipulated code sets. As details emerged from the Climategate scandal, Climatic Research Unit scientists at the University of East Anglia were exposed. Despite the significance of the scandal and its impact on climate science, the leftist media ignored it, and then focused on pushing forward with the [[global warming]] [[hoax]].<ref name=climatehoax>[[Rush Limbaugh]]. [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_120809/content/01125110.guest.html Hoax: Climate Change Makes Polar Bears Turn to Cannibalism], RushLimbaugh.com, December 8, 2009.</ref> Coverage of Climategate showed just how [[bias]] the [[liberal media]] has become in order to advance an environmental agenda.  

In the wake of the Climategate scandal, a truly bizarre situation happened; the [[Mainstream media|mainstream media]] stories about global warming pretended the uncovered documents never happened. This worldwide Climategate cover-up also occurred before the public had learned about Climategate, too. The [[U.K.]] ''[[Daily Mail]]'' pointed out that, a month prior to November 19, 2009, "The BBC received copies of some of the CRU emails more than a month ago, but did nothing about them, sitting on explosive evidence of fraud."<ref name=bbclie>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231763/BBC-weatherman-ignored-leaked-climate-row-emails.html BBC weatherman ‘ignored’ leaked climate row emails], [[Daily Mail|dailymail.co.uk]], November 28, 2009.</ref> It was later revealed that the BBC had previously invested a lot of money in carbon offset programs, so the media organization was dependent on the global warming hoax being perceived as truth.<ref>Rush Limbaugh. [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_031110/content/01125111.guest.html ChiComs Order Journalists to Undergo Marxist Theory Training (American Media Already Trained)], RushLimbaugh.com, March 11, 2010.</ref> Ongoing coverage of the Climategate scandal also verified NASA and the state-run media knew about temperature data issues nearly three years ago; for example, ''[[USA Today]]'' received information about these issues but refused to report on it. ''USA Today'' and ''[[BBC News]]'' shirked their journalistic duties to push global warming in spite of evidence that the earth has not been significantly warming since 1995.  

In the wake of the Climategate scandal, a truly bizarre situation happened; the [[mainstream media]] stories about global warming pretended the uncovered documents never happened. This worldwide Climategate cover-up also occurred before the public had learned about Climategate, too. The [[U.K.]] ''[[Daily Mail]]'' pointed out that, a month prior to November 19, 2009, "The BBC received copies of some of the CRU emails more than a month ago, but did nothing about them, sitting on explosive evidence of fraud."<ref name=bbclie>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231763/BBC-weatherman-ignored-leaked-climate-row-emails.html BBC weatherman ‘ignored’ leaked climate row emails], [[Daily Mail|dailymail.co.uk]], November 28, 2009.</ref> It was later revealed that the BBC had previously invested a lot of money in carbon offset programs, so the media organization was dependent on the global warming hoax being perceived as truth.<ref>Rush Limbaugh. [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_031110/content/01125111.guest.html ChiComs Order Journalists to Undergo Marxist Theory Training (American Media Already Trained)], RushLimbaugh.com, March 11, 2010.</ref> Ongoing coverage of the Climategate scandal also verified NASA and the state-run media knew about temperature data issues nearly three years ago; for example, ''[[USA Today]]'' received information about these issues but refused to report on it. ''USA Today'' and ''[[BBC News]]'' shirked their journalistic duties to push global warming in spite of evidence that the earth has not been significantly warming since 1995.  

{{cquote|Email messages obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute via a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that the climate dataset of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) was considered — by the top climate scientists within NASA itself — to be inferior to the data maintained by the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU). The NASA scientists also felt that NASA GISS data was inferior to the National Climate Data Center Global Historical Climate Network (NCDC GHCN) database. These emails, obtained by Christopher Horner, also show that the NASA GISS dataset was not independent of CRU data. Further, all of this information regarding the accuracy and independence of NASA GISS data was directly communicated to a reporter from USA Today in August 2007. The reporter never published it.<ref>Jim Hoft. [http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/03/junk-science-bombshell-nasa-media-knew-about-bogus-climate-data-3-years-ago/ Junk Science Bombshell: NASA & Media Knew About Bogus Climate Data 3 Years Ago], ''Gateway Pundit'', March 11, 2010.</ref>}}

{{cquote|Email messages obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute via a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that the climate dataset of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) was considered — by the top climate scientists within NASA itself — to be inferior to the data maintained by the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU). The NASA scientists also felt that NASA GISS data was inferior to the National Climate Data Center Global Historical Climate Network (NCDC GHCN) database. These emails, obtained by Christopher Horner, also show that the NASA GISS dataset was not independent of CRU data. Further, all of this information regarding the accuracy and independence of NASA GISS data was directly communicated to a reporter from USA Today in August 2007. The reporter never published it.<ref>Jim Hoft. [http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/03/junk-science-bombshell-nasa-media-knew-about-bogus-climate-data-3-years-ago/ Junk Science Bombshell: NASA & Media Knew About Bogus Climate Data 3 Years Ago], ''Gateway Pundit'', March 11, 2010.</ref>}}

As Climategate was totally ignored by most TV news outlets, ''[[Fox News]]'' appeared to be the only national news media in [[United States|America]] interested in the growing scandal.<ref>John Lott. [http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/11/24/john-lott-climate-change-emails-copenhagen/ Why You Should Be Hot and Bothered About 'Climate-gate'], FOXNews.com, November 24, 2009.</ref><ref name=accuracyinmedia/> Perhaps the [[MSM]] felt that by ignoring Climategate entirely that it would have just gone away. However, just as the case was during the [[Tea Party Movement]], notably during the 2009 [[Tax Day Tea Party]], [[blog|bloggers]] and the readers of the global warming stories kept bringing up the inconvenient truth of Climategate by mentioning the scandal "over and over and over again."<ref>P.J. Gladnick. [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/11/24/climategate-msm-writers-try-ignore-scandal-global-warming-stories-read Climategate: MSM Writers Try to Ignore Scandal in Global Warming Stories But Readers Bring Them Back to Reality], ''[[NewsBusters]]'', November 24, 2009.</ref>

As Climategate was totally ignored by most TV news outlets, ''[[Fox News]]'' appeared to be the only national news media in [[United States|America]] interested in the growing scandal.<ref name=accuracyinmedia/><ref>John Lott. [http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/11/24/john-lott-climate-change-emails-copenhagen/ Why You Should Be Hot and Bothered About 'Climate-gate'], FOXNews.com, November 24, 2009.</ref> Perhaps the [[MSM]] felt that by ignoring Climategate entirely that it would have just gone away. However, just as the case was during the [[Tea Party Movement]], notably during the 2009 [[Tax Day Tea Party]], [[blog]]gers and the readers of the global warming stories kept bringing up the inconvenient truth of Climategate by mentioning the scandal "over and over and over again."<ref>P.J. Gladnick. [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/11/24/climategate-msm-writers-try-ignore-scandal-global-warming-stories-read Climategate: MSM Writers Try to Ignore Scandal in Global Warming Stories But Readers Bring Them Back to Reality], ''[[NewsBusters]]'', November 24, 2009.</ref>

[[File:GlobalWarmingFraud Newsbusters.jpg|thumb|left|200px|(Image from Newsbusters)]]

[[File:GlobalWarmingFraud Newsbusters.jpg|thumb|left|200px|(Image from Newsbusters)]]

===Global Warming Hoax===

===Global Warming Hoax===

On December 08, 2009, the second day of [[Copenhagen]], news from the ''UK Telegraph'' headlined a Global warming hoax, "Starving Polar Bears Turn to Cannibalism."

On December 8, 2009, the second day of [[Copenhagen]], news from the ''UK Telegraph'' headlined a Global warming hoax, "Starving Polar Bears Turn to Cannibalism."

{{cquote|New pictures show that polar bears are beginning to cannibalize each other as global warming destroys its hunting grounds.  The images, taken in Hudson Bay, Canada, around 200 miles north of the town of Churchill, Manitoba, show a male polar bear carrying the bloodied head of a polar bear cub it has killed for food.  Polar bears usually subsist on seals, which they hunt from a platform of sea ice. But the melting of sea ice as a result of rising global temperatures has made it more difficult for polar bears to hunt seals at sea.<ref>Jonathan Liew. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/6760103/Starving-polar-bears-turn-to-cannibalism.html Starving polar bears turn to cannibalism], Telegraph.co.uk, December 08, 2009.</ref>}}

{{cquote|New pictures show that polar bears are beginning to cannibalize each other as global warming destroys its hunting grounds.  The images, taken in Hudson Bay, Canada, around 200 miles north of the town of Churchill, Manitoba, show a male polar bear carrying the bloodied head of a polar bear cub it has killed for food.  Polar bears usually subsist on seals, which they hunt from a platform of sea ice. But the melting of sea ice as a result of rising global temperatures has made it more difficult for polar bears to hunt seals at sea.<ref>Jonathan Liew. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/6760103/Starving-polar-bears-turn-to-cannibalism.html Starving polar bears turn to cannibalism], Telegraph.co.uk, December 08, 2009.</ref>}}

===Googlegate===

===Googlegate===

[[File:Gore firegloablawarminghoax.jpg|right|200px|thumb|[[Al Gore]] demonstrating his ability to spout fire is a parody of his fraudulent attempts to "prove" that 'global warming is man-made']]

[[File:Gore firegloablawarminghoax.jpg|right|200px|thumb|[[Al Gore]] demonstrating his ability to spout fire is a parody of his fraudulent attempts to "prove" that 'global warming is man-made']]

It was reported that, despite Climategate related pages being the most-read articles of the UK's ''Telegraph'' entire online operation, mysteriously when attempting to search using [[Google]] – it didn't feature links related to Climategate.<ref>Anthony Watts. [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/28/climategate-surpasses-global-warming-on-google-autosuggest-still-blocked/ “Climategate” surpasses “Global Warming” on Google], ''Watts Up With That?'', November 28, 2009.</ref> James Delingpole from the ''Telegraph'' noted, "Instead, the top-featured item is a blogger pushing Al Gore’s AGW agenda. Perhaps there’s nothing sinister in this. Perhaps some Google-savvy reader can enlighten me."<ref>James Delingpole. [http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018263/climategate-googlegate/ Climategate: Googlegate?], ''Telegraph Blogs'', November 29th, 2009.</ref> Google.com has been accused before of interfering with its own search [[algorithm|algorithms]] in order to interfere with searches for material deemed "not [[Politically correct|politically correct]]."<ref>[http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m11d29-Google-blocking-climategate-autosuggestion Google blocking 'climategate' autosuggestion], examiner.com, November 29, 2009.</ref><ref>Danny Sullivan. [http://searchengineland.com/of-climategate-googlegate-when-stories-get-too-long-30755 Of Climategate, Googlegate & When Stories Get Too Long], ''search engine land'', December 01, 2009.</ref>  

It was reported that, despite Climategate related pages being the most-read articles of the UK's ''Telegraph'' entire online operation, mysteriously when attempting to search using [[Google]] – it didn't feature links related to Climategate.<ref>Anthony Watts. [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/28/climategate-surpasses-global-warming-on-google-autosuggest-still-blocked/ “Climategate” surpasses “Global Warming” on Google], ''Watts Up With That?'', November 28, 2009.</ref> James Delingpole from the ''Telegraph'' noted, "Instead, the top-featured item is a blogger pushing Al Gore’s AGW agenda. Perhaps there’s nothing sinister in this. Perhaps some Google-savvy reader can enlighten me."<ref>James Delingpole. [http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018263/climategate-googlegate/ Climategate: Googlegate?], ''Telegraph Blogs'', November 29th, 2009.</ref> Google.com has been accused before of interfering with its own search [[algorithm]]s in order to interfere with searches for material deemed "not [[politically correct]]."<ref>[http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m11d29-Google-blocking-climategate-autosuggestion Google blocking 'climategate' autosuggestion], examiner.com, November 29, 2009.</ref><ref>Danny Sullivan. [http://searchengineland.com/of-climategate-googlegate-when-stories-get-too-long-30755 Of Climategate, Googlegate & When Stories Get Too Long], ''search engine land'', December 01, 2009.</ref>  

[[Al Gore]] is on the Google advisory board; Gore's position on Google's senior advisory board is likely bearing responsibility. On Al Gore's [[Web page]] in his biography he says:

[[Al Gore]] is on the Google advisory board; Gore's position on Google's senior advisory board is likely bearing responsibility. On Al Gore's [[Web page]] in his biography he says:

==Further reading==

==Further reading==

<small>

<small>

* Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series (''Energy & Environment'', vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 751-771, November 2003) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

* Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series (''Energy & Environment'', vol. 14, no. 6, pp.&nbsp;751–771, November 2003) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

* The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications (''Energy & Environment'', vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

* The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications (''Energy & Environment'', vol. 16, no. 1, pp.&nbsp;69–100, January 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

* Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance (''Geophysical Research Letters'', vol. 32, February 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

* Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance (''Geophysical Research Letters'', vol. 32, February 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

* Reply to comment by Huybers on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance" (''Geophysical Research Letters'', vol. 32, October 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

* Reply to comment by Huybers on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance" (''Geophysical Research Letters'', vol. 32, October 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

{{Climategate scandal}}

{{Climategate scandal}}

[[Category: Global Warming]]

[[Category:Global Warming]]

[[Category: Earth Sciences]]

[[Category:Earth Sciences]]

[[Category: Ecology]]

[[Category:Ecology]]

[[Category: Science]]

[[Category:Science]]

[[Category: Environment]]

[[Category:Environment]]

[[Category: Environmentalism]]

[[Category:Environmentalism]]

[[Category: Deceit]]

[[Category:Deceit]]

[[Category: Featured articles]]

[[Category:Featured articles]]