>I wasn't aware Elizabeth Kolbert had any scientific degree or was recognized as an expert in any scientific field...
>
>I said basically the same thing...she's a staff writer, not a scientist. Her entire argument in favor of GWT is, "how could so many people have pulled off a hoax?" Not realizing that GWT wasn't initially a hoax, it was (in part) misinterpretation of data.

That scientists involved in climate study, may have made mistakes along the way is understandable and expected. However, in the field of climate study there are 4 measured data sets. These sets show little warming since 1997 and more importantly show the "decline" in global temperatures since 1960 which was "hidden" in the hockey stick graph which was promoted world-wide as definitive proof that global warming is occurring. It's implicit devaluation of previous temperature heights in medieval and previous periods showed neglect at best. The scientist's own correspondence (prior to Climategate) showed purpose. The coordinated response of media induced name-calling to the exposure of the graph's statistical flaws showed desperation and malice towards those exposing the fraud.

Science is not consensus. It does not require political explanations, name calling, whitewashing inquiries, hiding and destroying data, manipulation of statistics, $300 million PSA campaigns, etc. Science has a method of determining what is and whether or not what is supposed qualifies as what is.

The obfuscation, manipulation, destruction and outright fear-induction shows all the signs of a campaign that did not have what "is" behind it from the beginning. Look back to James Hanson testifying before Congress in 1988 and ask yourself : If global warming is real and they had solid science behind it, why did Congress wait until the temperature outside was over 100 F and turn off the AC in that chamber for his appearance?

I disagree with your conclusion. It was a hoax from its very inception. ;)