I don't know why you'd limit it to "modern" science, but, whatever.

WE FOUND MANBEARPIG! Oh no wait...it was nothing.

Look, I'm not really going to spend all that much time on this because, quite frankly, I've known this for a decade, so have many of you. For the first couple years of the hoax, when I was trying to explain more or less exactly what's going on now to anyone who would listen, even my more inquisitive and rational friends bought into the nonsense because it was based on "science". Initially it was difficult to explain to them that there were, even in the beginning, loads of courageous scientists crying foul at each new, fraudulent IPCC report that came down the pipe.

But as the weeks and months and years passed, and more and more scientists began to question the nonsense and Al Gore made millions and...it stopped getting warmer, it became all the more clear that those of us who didn't believe a word of it from the get-go were going to be vindicated fully in the end.

And we were. And there's nothing sweeter. It's the sun stupid!

This James Delingpole chap over there at the Telegraph seems like a sharp bloke. Self-professed "right about everything", (I know the feeling), his article linked above is a nice overview of just what kind of global, widespread and self-executing fraud we're talking about here. It really is something special.

First though:

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential.

A "boffin"? Oh man, that is an awesome word. Fair warning, you will see that repeated on this website in the future dear readers. Damn boffins. Excellent.

Now, on with the show:

*Manipulation of evidence: 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) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up: The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate. Suppression of evidence: Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise. Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists: Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted. Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP): ……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back…. And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority: “This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?” “I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !” Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie” – Hadley CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. Hadley CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because Hadley CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.*

And that's the long and short of it.

Of course we're not done here though, because the nimrods in Congress still want to completely take over the U.S. economy after they're done with health care.

But at least we know now, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that there is not, nor was there ever, any such thing as man-made global warming.

So we got that going for us, which is nice.