The Snooper Report

Andrew C. Revkin / Dot Earth: A Climate Scientist Who Engages Skeptics

[...] The key lesson to be learned is that not only must scientific knowledge about climate change be publicly owned — the I.P.C.C. does a fairly good job of this according to its own terms — but the very practices of scientific enquiry must also be publicly owned, in the sense of being open and trusted. From outside, and even to the neutral, the attitudes revealed in the emails do not look good. To those with bigger axes to grind it is just what they wanted to find.

This will blow its course soon in the conventional media without making too much difference to Copenhagen — after all, COP15 is about raw politics, not about the politics of science. But in the Internet worlds of deliberation and in the ‘mood’ of public debate about the trustworthiness of climate science, the reverberations of this episode will live on long beyond COP15. Climate scientists will have to work harder to earn the warranted trust of the public - and maybe that is no bad thing. [...]

Typical.  The emails were leaked and that is illegal so we will just move on and protect ourselves gaining back the public trust.  Public trust?  Is that why the entire game plan was being blocked from view?  Just admit that you and your clowns were dead wrong and provoking a "science" that did not exist?  Damned flake.

Climate Progress: An open letter to graduate students

Here's a message in the post:

Steve Easterbrook says:
November 27, 2009 at 10:47 am

Under normal circumstances, I’d completely agree with Judith’s position. But she’s missed the point about the CRU emails. The CRU folks are under constant bombardment in what amounts to a “denial-of-service” attack on their work. It isn’t “skeptics” doing honest scientific enquiry that they are fending off; it’s a well funded PR campaign aimed at confusing the issue and discrediting scientists. And scientists in general have absolutely no idea how to deal with this. All our training tells us that taking the high ground is the appropriate thing to do. But you can’t fight a PR machine just by being open and honest – it will steamroller you flat. The other options suck too. Which means the scientific community has to come to a better understanding of what game is being played here, and figure out what option number 4 might be.

I’ve elaborated a little more here: http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/?p=1001

Amazing.  The leaked emails are just an "attack" on good science.  Pathetic.

There's more at RealClimate.

The Other McCain: 'Cap and Trade Is Dead'

[...] All along, the strongest evidence that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) was a hoax was a simple fact: Liberals believed in it. [...]

For all of my ClimateGate, Global Warming, Our Deteriorating Atmosphere and Climaquiddick posts from WAY BACK, see these links:

Climaquiddick - Global Warming - Our Deterioratiing Atmosphere - ClimateGate - Al Gore - some of trhe posts go all the way back to the year 2000.  Have fun.

The Snooper Report.  Join us as we Take Our Country Back.
Sic vis pacem para bellum
Fight Accordingly