If you are a fence-sitter on the climate change debate, I trust you have been paying attention this past week as we learned that global warming data is cooked – or maybe “fried” is a better descriptor. The economic liberty of Americans is up against ClimateGate, which is perhaps the biggest scientific scam and scandal the world has ever seen. The question: will all the many investigations now reluctantly called to examine the damning words of those considered the foremost climate scientists in the world, and specifically Dr. Philip Jones…will those investigations be honest and forthright?

Phil Jones

A short background of the genesis of this story: The scientific institute that governs the world climate data is the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the East Anglia University in Britain. Dr. Phillip Jones heads the CRU and he is responsible for two of the four key data sets used by the U.N. to drive their climate change program. Of the four data sets, Philip Jones’ two are the most important. Philip Jones is “the” climate change czar, and that is especially true now that James Hansen’s data, Hansen of NASA fame, has been discredited.

Last week, a hacker or an inside-whistleblower, released thousands of emails and documents. Numerous emails were between Phil Jones and his fellow, few, global warming scientists. These few run the show, and tell the world what is happening with the earth’s surface temperature. Through the emails, we know that this bunch of con-artists have adjusted temperatures from many years ago downward, and adjusted more recent years’ temperatures upward to show a dramatic change and…global warming.

We know that Phil Jones directed his “few” warmist scientists not tell anyone that Britain has a Freedom of Information Act, and if the Act should be initiated, he told his friends how to manuever to avoid the release of documents.

Steve McIntyre, a Canadian statistician, began to call Jones’ hand some years ago. McIntyre has been a major thorn in the side of those swearing by climate change. He asked Dr. Jones recently for his basic climate change data, and his request was refused. Through the emails, we also learned that the original data does not exist. The latest story is that it was just simply lost somewhere along the way. Another story is that “the dog ate global warming.”

The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) now has no credible data from the world’s chief science czar. This will not trouble the U.N., though, and we must understand that dynamic. For the U.N., this is not about climate change. It is about money – trillions of dollars that the U.N. will control if they can make the world buy climate change as a reality. Most of the trillions will come from the U.S. This is a case of America’s economic liberty vs. ClimateGate.

After the revelation that global warming is, indeed, fradulent, the head of the U.N.’s IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, said this:

There is “virtually no possibility” of a few scientists biasing the advice given to governments by the UN’s top global warming body, its chair said today.

The dirty little secret is, there are only a “few” scientists who have ever been listened to, consulted and trusted to forward the agenda for climate change. There are about 8 scientists working closely with the U.N. – only 8-or-so advising the U.N. Everyone other than these 8-or-so, sing in the choir. They champion what the 8-or-so tell them. They have no original data. They cannot use science to defend their position, because the science is fatally flawed. But then, Pachauri doesn’t think you know this.This from the CATO Institute on Pachauri:

The latest gem comes from none other than Rajendra Pauchari, the climatologically untrained head of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Without the IPCC there would be no cap-and-tax legislation awaiting debate in the Senate. There would be no meeting in Copenhagen, where, next month, world leaders will attempt to globalize cap-and-tax. There would also be no pledge from President Obama to emissions reductions that have never been passed by the Senate.

Pachauri, by the way, believes “western lifestyle is unsustainable.” As a hotel guest, you should have your electricity monitored. He wants “hefty” aviation taxes to deter you from flying – he wants taxes on all modes of transportation, as if there are not any now. And because of the flatulence of cattle, he wants no meat on your table.

Professor-Doctor Philip Jones says he will “step down” while the investigation is underway. Jones has received over $22 million in grants since 1990. For that, the citizens of the world got a liar and a cheater running-up the temperature of global warming. In his own words, he said he used his friend and peer, Michael Mann’s, “nature trick,” which he referred to as “Mike’s Nature trick” of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years from 1981 onwards and from 1961 “to hide the decline.” Michael Mann is the originator of the infamous and already discredited “hockey stick” graph indicating climate change. Mann is one of the 8-or-so accepted into the U.N. IPCC good-’ol-boys club.

The ClimateGate pyramid reveals these scientists as the known global warming bullies. I’m sure there are others, but we have these implicated by their own words, or implicated by the word of their peers: Philip Jones, Mick Kelly, Michael Mann, Tom Wigley, Kevin Trenberth, Thomas R. Karl, James E. Hansen and Gavin Schmidt.

Stephen McIntyre is only one of thousands of scientists and mathematicians who have debunked global warming for many years. Perhaps these people can be heard now. Marc Sheppard, for instance, has found “the fudge factor,” and has decoded the CRU source code. Here’s a pullout quote from Sheppard, about a very technological analysis that even I can understand:

But here’s what’s undeniable: If a divergence exists between measured temperatures and those derived from dendrochronological data after (circa) 1960, then discarding only the post-1960 figures is disingenuous, to say the least. The very existence of a divergence betrays a potential serious flaw in the process by which temperatures are reconstructed from tree-ring density. If it’s bogus beyond a set threshold, then any honest man of science would instinctively question its integrity prior to that boundary. And only the lowliest would apply a hack in order to produce a desired result.

And to do so without declaring as such in a footnote on every chart in every report in every study in every book in every classroom on every website that such a corrupt process is relied upon is not just a crime against science, it’s a crime against mankind.

Bottom line:  CRU’s evidence is now irrevocably tainted. As such, all assumptions based on that evidence must now be reevaluated and readjudicated. And all policy based on those counterfeit assumptions must also be reexamined.

Read the entire fudge factor here.

If these radical warmists are allowed to perpetrate their warming hoax, and our country commits to the international treaty, you and I will lose our economic liberty – lose to world-governmental regulations, which will destroy this country’s sovereignty. We will see prosperity diminished to limits that will not be recoverable for years, if ever, assuming we could withdraw from a treaty designed to cut America down-to-size, and fund third world dictators. ClimateGate is the best thing that could have happened to this country, outside of the destruction of radical Islam. We need to make the most of it.