Proving Nothing - Brendan O’Neill - Planet Gore on National Review Online

In fact, after visiting the “Prove It!” exhibition, I can fully understand why people voted Out — it’s not because they’re irrational idiots, but probably because they don’t like being treated like wide-eyed five-year-olds.

Can't Wait to See This TPS report - Chris Horner - Planet Gore on National Review Online

[email] NOAA want to give us more money for the El Nino work with IGCN.
How much do we have left from the last budget? I reckon most has been spent but we need to show some left to cover the costs of the trip Roger didn't make and also the fees/equipment/computer money we haven't spent otherwise NOAA will be suspicious.

BBC News - Harrabin's Notes: E-mail impact

Negotiators who have spoken to BBC News say that climate sceptic rows aren't influencing the talks. But that doesn't mean that the CRU e-mails won't have a lasting impact within the world of science.
...
But in the world of science policy, many others find themselves in a war of influence against those firms who fund the amplification of the messages of the relatively small number of genuinely sceptical scientists outside the consensus. The sceptic business lobby aims to keep scientific doubt alive to paralyse policy. This is the world of science Realpolitik.

Over two decades I've spoken to mainstream scientists who are sick of hearing their work attacked and their motives questioned.
...
In the absence of any formal inquiry, trial by internet will continue. For better or for worse.

Congress May Probe Leaked Global Warming E-Mails - Taking Liberties - CBS News

The irony of this situation is that most of us expect science to be conducted in the open, without unpublished secret data, hidden agendas, and computer programs of dubious reliability. East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit might have avoided this snafu by publicly disclosing as much as possible at every step of the way.

Hot Air » Blog Archive » CBS: East Anglia CRU covered up bad data, computer modeling

Most critics of AGW advocacy have never considered it science in the first place. This just shows that we were right; it’s a religious belief, and its high priests apparently have few scruples about rigging the models and the data to show what they want, rather than pursue science and the scientific method. Be sure to read all of Declan’s lengthy and excellent article.

Now — when will CBS put this on their Evening News? Or will they have to bump this for Katie Couric’s Poetry Corner?