There'll be nowhere to run from the new world government - Telegraph

Gordon Brown actually suggested something called a "global alliance" in response to climate change. (Would this be an alliance against the Axis of Extra-Terrestrials?)

Copenhagen was the MPs' expenses scandal writ large - Telegraph

The futile climate-change negotiations at Copenhagen revealed the same contempt for the public as the scandal over MPs' expenses, says Matthew d'Ancona.

Two Completely Different Sets of Rules | Climate Skeptic

The article needs to be read in total to get the gist of the whole sorry story, but it is very clearly a tale of two entirely different publication and review rules — one set for skeptics, and another far more congenial set for alarmists. I think the article pretty clearly tells the tale of a process tilted strongly against one side in a scientific debate.
...
The whole thing is really frustrating. One side is denied information, while the others are spoon fed their opposition’s work in progress nearly every week. One side’s publication is rushed, while the other’s is delayed. One side gets to essentially pick its own reviewers, and in an incredible breach, have a prickly reviewer simply removed from the process (again for no good reason than he wasn’t giving the answer they want). This is like watching the inside mechanics of an election in North Korea.

From the leaked CRU e-mail files: Phil Jones: 'It seems better to put the other anthro forcings before the natural get discussed' | GORE LIED

I’ve been wondering if all of the leaked (or hacked) CRU e-mails have actually been read? I mean virtually everyone has heard of the notorious “hide the decline” and “Mike’s Nature trick” e-mails. Perhaps they haven’t all been read, and everyone assumed that someone else would have already read the most damning ones, and blasted them through the blogosphere by now.