Compared to telling the EPA to alter or even not publish scientific studies the Bush administration didn't like, playing with data so it doesn't look like the warming is increasing AS MUCH is small potatoes. Which is basically the reason Christie Todd-Whitman resigned as EPA Chairman.

Let's be clear: IMHO monkeying with data so it looks more compelling is wretched science and damages the credibility of scientists doing it, no argument. And that's not only a liberal saying it, but I'm paraphrasing Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight when I do it, and he's pretty far left, too (if you hit the site he actually has a copy of the memo in question posted for context. ) However, just because one Canadian is convicted of murder doesn't mean someone can say, "SEE?!!! I've told you for YEARS all the Canadians were killers, but no one believed me: Now there's IRREFUTABLE PROOF1111" Not to mention that when he's talking about "hid[ing] the decline" they're not talking about a decline in TEMPERATURES, but in the RATE at which temperatures naetheless continued to RISE in the period they studied. You can make a very good case that they fudged the numbers to overstate their case for global warming, because it seems like in that one case they did, and it's deplorable. You cannot make the case global warming isn't happening in the long term, and it's hard to take seriously anyone who does.

And... global temperatures falling for eleven years? Either you're wrong or NASA is, and I'm betting on you; they have more corroborating evidence then you've presented. It goes up and down, but the overall long term trend is up, and if you look at their plots of mean temperatures for given periods rather than against individual time points the line is a lot less erratic. And has a stronger upward trend. You're claims strike me as in the same vein as saying, "You global warming people are nuts; look how much cooler it is now than it was in June!" Unfortunately, Fall doesn't disprove global warming.