Proof that global warming is a political hack job!

The CRU has been a major source of data on global temperatures, relied on by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Now we findout that 61 megabytes of e-mails suggest that CRU scientists have been lying to the public.
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
"Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4?"
"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty we can't."
"I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU temperature station data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!"

From the Atlantic's Megan McArdle. "The CRU's main computer model may be, to put it bluntly, complete rubbish."

Australian geologist Ian Plimer, tells it like it is; The e-mails "show that data was massaged, numbers were fudged, diagrams were biased, there was destruction of data after freedom of information requests, and there was refusal to submit taxpayer-funded data for independent examination."
Global warming alarmist George Monbiot of the Guardian concedes that the e-mails "could scarcely be more damaging," adding, "I'm dismayed and deeply shaken by them." He has called for the resignation of the CRU director.

You remember the phrase: garbage in, garbage out?

The Copenhagen climate summit was convened to get the leaders of nations to commit to sharp reductions in carbon dioxide emissions — and thus sharp reductions in almost all energy usage, at huge economic cost.

Will your President bow down and give away your freedoms and rights to a bunch of no a count liars?

To continue… the consensus was based in large part on CRU data that was, to take the charitable explanation, "complete rubbish" or, to take the more dire view, the product of deliberate fraud.
Quite possibly the CRU e-mailers were sincere in their belief that they were saving the planet. Like Al Gore, they wanted to convince the world's elites that the time for argument is over, the scientific consensus is clear and those who disagree can be dismissed as cranks (and should be disqualified from receiving research grants).

Predictions like Al Gores, impose enormous costs on the American and world economies, but is this not the agenda of Obama also?

Why is Barack Obama going to Copenhagen? This whole thing seems to be a waste of time and energy. China and India are not going to choke off their dazzling economic growth to please Western global warming alarmists, and If Obama agrees to any concessions that impair or limit the USA, he needs thrown out of office by his ear!