The massive global warming fraud that profiteers and power hungry governments have been foisting on the public has finally been exposed. One of its chief fabricating architects, a "researcher" at the Univeristy of East Anglia, has been forced to resign. His unit is the source of much of the data used to justify the claims that Al Gore and other charlatans falsely make.

Two articles are worth reading. The first is a quietly objective review of the facts by an MIT professor of Meterology. The second is by the well known political analyst Michael Barone, who exhibits some real world disgust and anger about this global fraud that would strangle economies and plunge billions into poverty if its proponents succeed.

OPINION NOVEMBER 30, 2009 in the Wall Street Journal The Climate Science Isn't Settled Confident predictions of catastrophe are unwarranted.

By RICHARD S. LINDZEN, Professor of Meterology, MIT

Is there a reason to be alarmed by the prospect of global warming? Consider that the measurement used, the globally averaged temperature anomaly (GATA), is always changing. Sometimes it goes up, sometimes down, and occasionally—such as for the last dozen years or so—it does little that can be discerned.

Claims that climate change is accelerating are bizarre. There is general support for the assertion that GATA has increased about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since the middle of the 19th century. The quality of the data is poor, though, and because the changes are small, it is easy to nudge such data a few tenths of a degree in any direction. Several of the emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) that have caused such a public ruckus dealt with how to do this so as to maximize apparent changes.

Read on . . .

Michael Barone is a bit more biting and direct in his condemnation of the fraud and the politicians who eagerly buy into it, including our president:

As Air Force One heads to Copenhagen for the climate summit Dec. 9, it will presumably not make a U-turn while flying over the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at University of East Anglia near Norwich, England. But perhaps it should.

And this:

You get the idea. The most charitable plausible explanation I have seen comes from The Atlantic's Megan McArdle. "The CRU's main computer model may be, to put it bluntly, complete rubbish."

Australian geologist Ian Plimer, a global warming skeptic, is more blunt. 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."

And finally:

Copenhagen, despite Barack Obama's presence, seems sure to be a bust -- there will be no agreement on mandatory limits on carbon emissions. Even if there were, it would probably turn out to be no more effective than the limits others agreed to in Kyoto in 1997. In any case, China and India are not going to choke off their dazzling economic growth to please Western global warming alarmists.

The more interesting question going forward is whether European and American governmental, academic and corporate elites, having embraced global warming alarmism with religious fervor, will be shaken by the scandalous CRU e-mails. They should be.

Read it all.