This veritable goldmine has given us tales ranging from evidence destruction to spitting on the Freedom of Information Act on both sides of the Atlantic.
But the now irrefutable evidence that alarmists have indeed been cooking the data for at least a decade may just be the most important strike in human history.
This point of view initiated what some call a disaster in the codfish industry.
Scientists also claim that antibiotic resistance is an effect of natural selection and evolution.
Based upon IPCC assessments and other climatology institutions recommendations considering the cause and effect unequivocal coal, oil and natural gas industries are specifically targeted as culprits of this approaching devastation.
Mainstream science, or the pro anthropogenic side of the debate continues a stranglehold on the scientific process regarding global warming.
The above discussions are necessary as a springboard to point out the arbitrary inconsistency in scientific thought concerning the perceived increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
If the above assertions are true, and the codfish are expected to naturally evolve stronger forms, the bacteria are naturally able to evolve stronger, more resistant forms, then it follows that humans and all other living systems should be able to naturally adapt to increases in carbon dioxide levels.
They assert that bacteria spontaneously develop this resistance in the midst of environmental pressure to do so and then pass this on to their descendants.
In point of fact, the capacity to resist the antibiotics pre-existed the need because the bacteria is designed to respond this way.
The trend that there is no worthy scientific alternative to the theory of anthropogenic global warming is dispelled through dissenting qualified and competent scientists speaking out against the so-called scientific monopoly.
The Financial Times launched an investigation that found widespread failings surrounding the emerging market of paying money to buy credits which then offset the carbon dioxide a person has emitted.
And the IPCC, in turn, bases those reports largely on the data and charts provided by the research scientists at CRU – largely from tree ring data -- who just happen to be editors and lead authors of that same U. And all policy based on those counterfeit assumptions must also be re-examined.