Climagate Scandal and it's Scientist

The scientists included in the Climategate emails from the University of East Anglia Include:

James Hansen the scientist who kicked off the scare with testimony before Congress in 1988 by saying that temperatures would rise four times faster than they have.

Kevin Trenbirth the author of the now discredited paper of 1997 updated in 2008 pretending to show that there is a dangerous accumulation of heat energy in the atmosphere.

Ben Santer, the scientist who rewrote the main conclusions of the UN's 1995 Climate Assessment Report so as to change them from a statement that humanity was having no measurable effect on global temperature to a statement that humanity was affecting temperature.

Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia who for years refused to allow other scientists access to his computer programs and temperature data so they could check them and who, as the emails reveal, advised other conspirators that they should destroy data that had been validly requested by other scientists using the UK Freedom of information Act.

Michael Mann of Penn State University who fabricated and contrived the headline graph in the UN's 2001 climate assessment report which falsely attempted to state that the middle ages were not warmer than the present day when the scientific, historical and archaeological consensus was and is that the middle ages was substantially warmer throughout the world and that today's temperatures are not exceptional.

Tom Karl the director of the national climatic data center of the US NOAA, who compiled another global temperature record who's errors and exaggerations of recent warming have caused concern.

Gavin Schmidt who is involved in compiling the temperature record kept by NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, a record which has repeatedly been found to have exaggerated and overstated recent warming.

Keith Briffa who has succeeded in persuading the conspirators that in order to achieve the desired result of pretending that today's temperatures are exceptionally wrong that they should rely upon the measurement of tree rings from a single tree in rural Russia.