Climate change scandal: BBC expert was sent 'cover-up' emails a month before they were made public | Mail Online

The controversy surrounding the global warming e-mail scandal has deepened after a BBC correspondent admitted he was sent the leaked messages more than a month before they were made public.

As with the Truth about Acid Rain, the MSM Wants to Bury Climaquiddick - Henry Payne - Planet Gore on National Review Online

In fact, like global warming science today, the “consensus” science in 1990 — which argued that Midwest power plants were destroying Northeast lakes with acid rain — was bunk. So how can Skole (and his allies) boldly stake their claim? Because Washington politicians and their media parrots covered up the scientific evidence in 1990 so that it would not derail the regulation they had long sought. It is a cautionary tale for those who think that truth will win the day after the newly released Climate Research Unit e-mails — a.k.a., Climaquiddick — have revealed fraud in global-warming science.

The Migrant Mind: Climatologists avoid taxes

I ran into the following email from the CRU hacked emails which seems to violate the spirit of Russian tax collection. In an email allegedly from Stepan Shiyatov written on Tatiana M. Dedkova's email account to K. Briffa, money was sought for funding the Yamal tree ring project. But interestingly Stepan was asking that the money be put into his personal account. That sounds very Bernie Madoffish. It seems odd to me that Stepan was writing on Tatiana's email account asking for money to be put into personal accounts. If this was done, does this constitute malfeaseance?

Speaking Truth To Power: Global Warming Science... | Gather

Did anyone else hear about the scientists caught planting Bobcat/Lynx fur, to fudge results determining it's range area? I doubt it, but it happened, a few years back. They said they were actually "testing" the lab that they sent the fur to, because "biologists were skeptical that the lab would produce accurate results; they were suspicious of test results, ironically enough, because another lab had found more lynx than the biologists thought was likely." Really. A similar problem is happening in the global warming community. Apparently, the evidence has indicated that temperatures aren't predictable by any of the "global warming" models. Perhaps they were doing an "unauthorized" data entry to check that other "scientists" weren't cheating on their results.

Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog: Redefining Peer Review

...many climate scientists (and presumably others inside and outside of the scientific establishment) are unwilling to cede ownership of the "truth" to a small clique of scientists.