Changes

==Climategate scandal==

==Climategate scandal==

[[Image:RobinsonWhatWarmsTheEarth.gif|right|frame]]

[[Image:RobinsonWhatWarmsTheEarth.gif|right|frame]]

Climate science was troubled after news reports of the Climategate scandal went public, after the release of a thousand email messages and a collection of data and data processing programs from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit.<ref>Christopher C. Horner. [http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/23/media-missing-the-plot-on-climate-gate-its-the-fraud-stupid/#more-35302 Media Missing the Plot on ‘Climate Gate’: It’s the Fraud, Stupid!], BigGovernment.com, November 23, 2009.</ref> The trustworthiness of the scientific community's global warming data pool was called into question, and it appeared to have worsened for global warming theorists after another revelation came about on November 29, with the publication of a report by ''The Sunday Times'' of [[London]]. It was reported that scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit in the United Kingdom confessed to throwing out most of the raw temperature data on which the theory of global warming is founded.<ref>Gene J. Koprowski. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578368,00.html Global Warming Scandal Makes Scientific Progress More Difficult, Experts Say], ''[[Fox News]]'', December 01, 2009.</ref> The admittance occurred following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.  

Climate science was troubled after news reports of the Climategate scandal went public, after the release of a thousand email messages and a collection of data and data processing programs from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit.<ref>Christopher C. Horner. [http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/23/media-missing-the-plot-on-climate-gate-its-the-fraud-stupid/#more-35302 Media Missing the Plot on ‘Climate Gate’: It’s the Fraud, Stupid!], BigGovernment.com, November 23, 2009.</ref> The trustworthiness of the scientific community's global warming data pool was called into question. On November 29, with the publication of a report by ''The Sunday Times'' of [[London]], it was reported that scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit in the United Kingdom confessed to throwing out most of the raw temperature data on which the theory of global warming is founded.<ref>Gene J. Koprowski. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578368,00.html Global Warming Scandal Makes Scientific Progress More Difficult, Experts Say], ''[[Fox News]]'', December 01, 2009.</ref> The admittance occurred following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.  

[[Michelle Malkin]] reported on the University of East Anglia, the research institution at the center of Climategate. She detailed one of the many problems that will occur as a result of such data loss, "It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years."<ref>[[Michelle Malkin]]. [http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/30/document-dump-a-palooza/ Document-dump-a-palooza], ''Michelle Malkin'', November 30, 2009.</ref> The Climategate scandal is a worldwide corruption of climate science and is not confined to just Britain’s CRU climate research centre. 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>

[[Michelle Malkin]] reported on the University of East Anglia, the research institution at the center of Climategate. She detailed one of the many problems that will occur as a result of such data loss, "It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years."<ref>[[Michelle Malkin]]. [http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/30/document-dump-a-palooza/ Document-dump-a-palooza], ''Michelle Malkin'', November 30, 2009.</ref> The Climategate scandal is a worldwide corruption of climate science and is not confined to just Britain’s CRU climate research centre. 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 have been 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 [[IPCC]] reports. It is partly why the [[Obama administration]] is insisting on participating in the climate conference in [[Copenhagen]].

:* From a June 11, 2008 press release at the University of East Anglia, the CRU stated that they set the agenda on [[climate change]], "The University of East Anglia, particularly its Climatic Research Unit, is the only university to be included in a list of the key bodies that have set the environmental agenda in the UK over the past 30 years."<ref>Steve Gilbert. [http://sweetness-light.com/archive/cru-set-the-agenda-on-climate-change CRU “Set Agenda” On Climate Change], ''Sweetness & Light'', November 30, 2009.</ref>

:* On December 01, 2009, [[Phil Jones]], the director of the embattled Climatic Research Unit in the [[United Kingdom]] stepped down pending the investigation 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>

The CRU scientists deliberately falsified data 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 has 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 the investigation 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]] is still under investigation by [[Pennsylvania State University]].

:* [[Michael Mann]] is under investigation by [[Pennsylvania State University]].

From the [[United States]] Climategate, 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 the past 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, 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 deliberately falsified data then used the results of the falsification to obtain additional research funding.  This is [[criminal]] [[fraud]] under [[English]] [[Law]].

:* The number of actual weather stations used to calculate average global temperatures was reduced from about 6,000 in the 1970s to about 1,500 today.  

:* 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 the past 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 number of reporting stations in Canada dropped from 600 to 35.

:* The centerpiece of New Zealand's ''National Institute of Water & Atmospheric'' research temperature claims have been 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 [[IPCC]] reports. It is partly why the [[Obama administration]] is insisting on participating in the climate conference in [[Copenhagen]].

Stations in places such as the [[Andes]] and [[Bolivia]] have virtually vanished, and temperatures from these areas are now "determined by interpolation from stations hundreds of miles away on the coast or in the Amazon." Average temperatures were extrapolated from readings in other cities across the world. This selectivity of locations made NASA's data and [[climate change]] conclusions skewed to to advance the global warming agenda rather than create data based on scientific facts. The Climategate emails showed that climatologists had conspired to suppress research challenged the global warming orthodoxy.<ref>NP Editor. [http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/01/29/steve-janke-more-unsettling-science-in-the-global-warming-camp.aspx Steve Janke: More unsettling science in the global warming camp], ''[[National Post]]'', January 29, 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 ''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 03, 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 [[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 [[paleoclimatologist|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.

#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>

</blockquote>

</blockquote>

 

===Data Manipulation===

===Data manipulation===

[[Image:Orange sun large.jpg|thumb|right|300px|On December 10, 2009, [[Roy W. Spencer]], Ph. D., showed the potential effects of sunspot activity on climate, detailing [http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/geomagnetic-forcing-of-earth%E2%80%99s-cloud-cover-during-2000-2008/ solar geomagnetic to earth climate connections]. On the subject of solar activity affecting climate variations, the geomagnetic modulation of cloudiness has about 10 times the effect on the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth as does the solar cycle’s direct modulation of the sun’s output. It also rivals the level of forcing due to [[Anthropogenic global warming theory|anthropogenic]] [[Greenhouse effect|greenhouse gas emissions]], but with way more variability from year to year and decade to decade. (Can anyone say, “natural climate variability”?)]]

[[Image:Orange sun large.jpg|thumb|right|300px|On December 10, 2009, [[Roy W. Spencer]], Ph. D., showed the potential effects of sunspot activity on climate, detailing [http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/geomagnetic-forcing-of-earth%E2%80%99s-cloud-cover-during-2000-2008/ solar geomagnetic to earth climate connections]. On the subject of solar activity affecting climate variations, the geomagnetic modulation of cloudiness has about 10 times the effect on the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth as does the solar cycle’s direct modulation of the sun’s output. It also rivals the level of forcing due to [[Anthropogenic global warming theory|anthropogenic]] [[Greenhouse effect|greenhouse gas emissions]], but with way more variability from year to year and decade to decade. (Can anyone say, “natural climate variability”?)]]

Climategate shows strong evidence of fraud, and may show smoking-gun proof of a cover-up by CRU scientists to exaggerate the existence, causation, and threat of global warming.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html Climate Skeptics See 'Smoking Gun' in Researchers' Leaked E-Mails], FOXNews.com, November 21, 2009.</ref><ref>Marc Sheppard. [http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_evidence_of_climate_fraud.html The Evidence of Climate Fraud], ''American Thinker'', November 21, 2009.</ref><ref>Noel Sheppard. [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/25/climategate-smoking-gun-american-thinker-does-medias-job ClimateGate Smoking Gun Found, American Thinker Does Media's Job], ''[[NewsBusters]]'', November 25, 2009.</ref> From ''Cube Antics'', by Robert Greiner, who is a scientist and engineer "with an agnostic stand on global warming," he offered a statement about the research methods of the CRU scientists, attempting to show proof that they had the means and intent to falsify data. Greiner pointed out that the Climategate emails alone do not provide sufficient proof that the CRU was deliberately tampering with their data. What the Climategate emails do show is that climate scientists may have committed a [[felony]] using government funded money; moreover, within the collection of data and data processing programs revealed from Climategate, code from the CRU shows proof that valid [[temperature station]] readings were taken and skewed to fabricate the results the "scientists" wanted to believe, not what actually occurred.<ref name=codeproof>Robert Greiner. [http://cubeantics.com/2009/12/the-proof-behind-the-cru-climategate-debacle-because-computers-do-lie-when-humans-tell-them-to/ The Proof Behind the CRU Climategate Debacle], ''Cube Antics'', December 03, 2009.</ref> Analysis of the CRU's code revealed the foundation for the manipulated temperature readings. Greiner reiterated his findings:

Climategate shows strong evidence of fraud, and may show smoking-gun proof of a cover-up by CRU scientists to exaggerate the existence, causation, and threat of global warming.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html Climate Skeptics See 'Smoking Gun' in Researchers' Leaked E-Mails], FOXNews.com, November 21, 2009.</ref><ref>Marc Sheppard. [http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_evidence_of_climate_fraud.html The Evidence of Climate Fraud], ''American Thinker'', November 21, 2009.</ref><ref>Noel Sheppard. [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/25/climategate-smoking-gun-american-thinker-does-medias-job ClimateGate Smoking Gun Found, American Thinker Does Media's Job], ''[[NewsBusters]]'', November 25, 2009.</ref> From ''Cube Antics'', by Robert Greiner, who is a scientist and engineer "with an agnostic stand on global warming," he offered a statement about the research methods of the CRU scientists, attempting to show proof that they had the means and intent to falsify data. Greiner pointed out that the Climategate emails alone do not provide sufficient proof that the CRU was deliberately tampering with their data. What the Climategate emails do show is that climate scientists may have committed a [[felony]] using government funded money; moreover, within the collection of data and data processing programs revealed from Climategate, code from the CRU shows proof that valid [[temperature station]] readings were taken and skewed to fabricate the results the "scientists" wanted to believe, not what actually occurred.<ref name=codeproof>Robert Greiner. [http://cubeantics.com/2009/12/the-proof-behind-the-cru-climategate-debacle-because-computers-do-lie-when-humans-tell-them-to/ The Proof Behind the CRU Climategate Debacle], ''Cube Antics'', December 03, 2009.</ref> Analysis of the CRU's code revealed the foundation for the manipulated temperature readings. Greiner reiterated his findings:

{{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/>}}

</small>

</small>

===Subverting the scientific peer review process===

===Climategate fraud===

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.  

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, Climategate forced the United Nations climate watchdog to admit 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> In another crushing blow for the man-made global warming movement, [[Greenpeace]] leader [[Gerd Leipold]] admitted that his organization issued misleading and 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 a recent 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 uncovered lies about global warming, the head of a panel of United Nations climate scientists 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>

 

===Freedom of Information Act===

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]].

==Climategate emails==

==Climategate emails==

* [http://www.nocapandtrade.com/ ClimateGate] - Facts on climate change

* [http://www.nocapandtrade.com/ ClimateGate] - Facts on climate change

* [http://eastangliaemails.com/ The CRU emails] - East Anglia confirmed emails from the Climatic Research Unit

* [http://eastangliaemails.com/ The CRU emails] - East Anglia confirmed emails from the Climatic Research Unit

{{Climategate scandal}}

{{Climategate scandal}}