A leading figure in the "Climategate" scandal a while back involving the CRU, East Anglia, et al, over DAMNING emails is still stewing.  Michael Mann has found a friend in this judge.  How the heck this judge determined the evidence was weak, etc, is beyond my comprehension.  There was the email evidence, admitted data deletion, etc...  I wonder if this obvious leftist kook judge would be so forgiving of the CIA's destroyed interrogation tapes?  You know...  The tapes the LIberal kooks about had a conniption over and demanded to see.  The ones that actually DO exist.  I digress, but you get the point.  Destroyed documentation only equates to outrage when done by "NeoCons."  LOL...  Anywho, Mann has been completely cross checked by his crap "Hockey Stick" graph.  The guy deserves to be investigated.  Mann receives Gov grants, etc, and anything fraud should be pursued!  I don't care if an investigation by his own school "cleared" Mann.  That is sort of like your mom "clearing" you.  We need more independent audits.  Heck, the UN has been exposed as well and is corrupt as anything.  Rajendra Pachuri (IPCC hack), et al, should be defunded and removed from NYC.  Heck, the UN should be removed from NYC and put in Africa, etc...  Some other nation which could use the business and visibility.

Update 09/08/2010: The hoax just keeps falling apart more with each passing day.  This whole Global Warming scam reminds me of two other similar data hacks.  The first was the Clinton administration prediciting budget surpluses of like $4 trillion over 10 years during the VERY brief period in the 1990's when we had a budget SURPLUS of like $200 billion one year.  Ha!  When has government EVER spent less than they took in?  I think a good example of using real data to get a predetermined outcome ala the Global Warming hockey stick is this...  Imagine we have a stock that has been rallying for three months.  It might dip a bit here/there, but the trend is very uphill.  Train that data in a Neural Network and see what the next week or month of predicted prices is.  It will be for higher prices.  Why?  All the model input is positive feedback.  There is no negative feedback.  Duh!  Ditto the hockey stick graph.  There weren't any negative feedback inputs.  I don't even know why I mentioned the hockey stick graph.  The darn thing was debunked a LONG time ago, but that is essentially what these "scientists" did.  They used real data in incomplete models to get what they wanted.  They should all be given F's...