First note — “all” in the above title is just a colloquialism, as in “all this nonsense”.
So it turns out that the scientists, you know, the folks who published all the alarming hoo-hah about global warming? Well, they selected which data to include in (and exclude from) their study, which makes the scientificity very suspect.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/01/EDV01ASHN5.DTL
Note that the SFGATE article only shows that, like the rest of us, even high-caliber scientists can have their own agenda and can fall prey to picking-and-choosing the data that support their pet causes. This is called confirmation bias, when we try to figure that we’re already right, instead of trying to find out what the actual data is telling us.
Second Note — This article does not mean that global warming is a fraud. Likely? Possible? Probable? Maybe, but not conclusive. Don’t fall into the trap of swinging the blindness pendulum to the other side of the argument.
Just because the little boy cried wolf… it doesn’t mean there isn’t a wolf.
Third note — where’s the hue and cry about defrauding the public? It’s not there! Could big-lobbying-dollars have anything to do with it? (Just because I’m paranoid, doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get me…)
For a much more reasonable take on Global Warming, whether it’s true or not, check out Greg Cravens’s “How It All Ends” video at Youtube.com (Greg Cravens talks about “Confirmation Bias” in chapter 3 of his book).