So there have been some emails exchanged about how evidence of climate change has been misrepresented or completely suppressed.  I can guarantee you that if these emails were stolen from "big oil" or one of the other various boogeyman industries and if the subject was how they were suppressing the effects of fossil fuels on the environment, there'd be all sorts of fecal matter all over all the fans in all of the governments and college campi around the world.  Alas, since the opposite is true, the Washington Post, New York Times, et al. dismiss the exchange as having been taken out of context and claim that the gravest sin is the attempted manipulation of peer reviews.  Oh, is that all?  Only attempting to manipulate the process by which your peers determine if your claims (which world leaders are clinging to desperately in an effort to control as much of the lives of their citizenry as possible) are total garbage or legitimate scientific fact.  That sounds like jury tampering.  Really if this idea of Global Warming were so air-tight, then who cares about Peer Reviews?  Shouldn't the "truth" persuade people?  Not carefully manipulated and massaged data?  Seriously, no one should be signing any treaties until everyone's cards are on the table.  And probably not then, either.