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?

"people still believe in evolution": runner at least they are not the religious nutters who believe in Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, Goldilocks and the Tree Bears, and Jonah in his whale. which one don't you believe in.

Bugsy, the data was never published. It was all on just one computer, so the story goes, which "crashed" would you believe? If you can be3lieve that, you probably believe Peter Pan is a true story.

I guess the green blob fraternity will believe such a tall story, but they will swallow anything that helps their religion.

With every exposed con job such as this, a few more genuine people have their eyes opened to the stinking cesspit that is the use of the global warming scam by those who don't like us peasants.

A few more people, who find it hard to believe our elites would try to do this to us, can finally see the smoke with each exposed scam, & realise their must be a fire hidden away somewhere.

Even our Foxy is starting to have a few doubts, & researching a bit more widely. When people like her, who only want to see the good in everyone, have to admit they have been coned the scam will be finished, & that is not far off now.

Anyone who can read this exposure with their eyes actually open will have to start to doubt their previous belief. Of course, some will refuse to look, in fear of seeing the truth. Are you one of them, or a gravy train rider?

I do not know where you are getting your stories from Hasbeen, but that is patently untrue. The data was made available to other researchers, who have since verified the analysis.

If the computer 'crashed' and the data was lost, then how did this guy get a hold of it?
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-mail-sundays-astonishing-evidence-global-temperature-rise

He claims they put up all that was required on their FTP site in June 2015, including temperature anomalies, spatially gridded data land and ocean data, and the land station data associated with their analysis.

Anyways, if you can point me in the direction of the origin of the 'one computer that crashed' story, I would be grateful.

First from Germany, but JoNova now has the story.

OK, just read the JoNova story on it and you STILL couldn't get it right.

"all data was stored on one computer that crashed"

Bollocks to that BS, noone ever said that except you.

Anyways, the datasets are archived and available and verified.

I'll repeat the question for the intellectually challenged:

What evidence is there that the datasets currently in use are actually fraudulent?

All I can see is some guy getting his knickers in a twist because the data wasn't archived properly before publication. OK, I can believe that.