The UK papers have been writing diligently about how the case for man-made global warming has been steadily falling apart. Here’s an excerpt of some of the latest revelations:

The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.

Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.

Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

The Washington Post also had a story about the new challenges the global warming alarmists face, but with a very telling bias. The article was entitled “Series of missteps by climate scientists threatens climate-change agenda.” You see, all the missteps, all the new revelations about missing and made-up data, are very sad since they give those ogres who want to continue polluting the planet ammo. The Post reassures us, “There is still a scientific consensus that humans are causing climate change,” but then laments that “in the past year, a cache of stolen e-mails, revealing that prominent climate scientists sought to prevent the publication of works by their detractors, has sullied their image as impartial academics. The errors in the U.N. report — a document intended to be the last nail in the coffin of climate doubt — are a serious problem that could end up forcing environmentalists to focus more on the old question of proving that climate change is a threat, instead of the new question of how to stop it.”

The Post’s story studiously avoids delving too deeply into the extent of those errors, the manner in which scientists who question the global consensus have been silenced, and the new revelations (like those discussed in the Daily Telegraph’s story) that fundamentally undermine the IPCC’s conclusions. The quote included in this article that I thought was most telling was this:

“What’s happened here is that there’s an industry of climate-change denialists who are trying to make it seem as though you can’t trust anything that is between the covers” of the panel’s report, said Jeffrey Kargel, a professor at the University of Arizona who studies glaciers. “It’s really heartbreaking to see this happen, and to see that the IPCC left themselves open” to being attacked.

The U.S. media often allows global warming alarmists to sully any global warming consensus critic as a tool of Big Oil and part of an “industry” of “denialists.” What about all of the money that is being awarded to these so-called leading climatologists that can’t bother to keep data records straight? The U.S. federal government alone pours billions into the arms of these “impartial” research institutions that are essentially rewarded for continuing to churn out pro-global warming studies. That’s to say nothing of the alternative energy industry, which will enjoy even bigger windfalls if the Administration succeeds in imposing a tax on carbon in the name of combating global warming.

Reporters should be skeptical about the claims of those with a vested interest in denying global warming. But shouldn’t they save just a little bit of skepticism for the global warming industry too?