http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...82774.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574559630382048494.html?mod=googlenews_wsj http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/gerald...rade-laws/ I'm drawing attention to a neglected story concerning hacked emails providing incontrovertible evidence that global warming (along with human culpability regarding same) cannot be considered as anything other than theory. Instead, it is essentially touted as fact, and, consequently used as a pretext for establishing global governance in various forms. The collusion revealed by these emails resulting in suppression of evidence and the marginalization/discrediting of opponents/skeptics (who should be included in the process of peer review), severely undermines/calls into question the credibility of those employing the scientific method. I've said as much back in the day in another forum. I had never had a problem with 'science' per se, but with those doing the science. Therefore, despite limited benefits, when one considers who is actually 'doing science' i.e. employing the scientific method, science is hamstrung by definition. This conclusion is inescapable. The story about the emails should be front page news. Thoughts?