Now we have a whistle blower from America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) who has exposed a huge rort they pulled with a totally falsified paper they produced before the Parris climate conference.

Using falsified figures they have now hidden, they "eliminated" the 17 year hiatus in global warming, to get the fool delegates to agree with Obama to ridiculous alternate energy targets.

His proof is so good that even mainstream media in the US Germany & the UK are covering the story.

What's the betting that it never appears on the ABC here?

The beginning of the end for the climate scam. It does look like they will not be able to get the wheels back on their gravy train this time. This gives Trump some great evidence to use to roll some pretty big heads of gravy train riders.

Well some people have the memory of a goldfish, Climategate 3.0 was three years ago and was a complete damp squib.
Even Andrew Bolt can't keep up with the confected outrage, he's calling it Climategate 2, and that was ages ago.

OK, so someone in the UK Daily Mail reckons they have a 'whistleblower' eh?

Well I for one will reserve judgement, however I am confused as to what evidence they have that the NOAA record published in the Karl et al paper discussed was falsified, as it has already been independently verified from a bunch of datasets. So I'm not sure what evidence they have to say that isn't real.
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e1601207

I guess we'll wait and see. I suspect another damp squib. Andrew Bolt loves 'em.

people still believe in evolution so why wouldn't they still believe the man made gw scam. Both frauds to the highest order.

I would like to think that it is the end of the scam, Hasbeen. Unfortunately, it is very difficult for the types of people we are up against to admit that they were wrong. They are genuine oddballs and cranks. What seems absurd to us, is quiet normal to them. They are the same people who don't recognise simple 'truths' the way we do.

LOL. Climategates 1 and 2 turned out to be nothing, so how did we get to 3? You lot are desperate.

And what's with the interactive version numbering? Is that some sort of an attempt to make it sound more official or something?

Actually AJ, it should be 4.0 or perhaps 5.0, because version 3 has been trumpeted a couple of times already now for different things:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/13/climategate-3-0-has-occurred-the-password-has-been-released/

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18300-climategate-3-0-university-threatens-blogger-for-exposing-97-consensus-fraud

They never seem to lead anywhere. The password for the original 3.0 was supposed to have been released, but there was no followup.

Anyways, I would be interested to see the evidence that somehow the independently verified datasets are 'faked'. I can certainly believe it's plausible that they may have been published without full independent verification, but that has since happened. So, in what way are they fraudulent? What is the evidence that the Karl et al paper is wrong?