Michael Reagan : The Haze of Copenhagen - Townhall.com

Even if we were to accept the dubious scientific and environmental arguments which have sparked these Copenhagen negotiations, the idea that America should sign a binding legal treaty when other nations are given a free pass is absurd.

Climategatekeeping #2 « Climate Audit

Jones and Trenberth clearly lived up to the threat to keep Michaels and McKitrick 2004 out of the IPCC AR4 First and Second Drafts, and when that effort foundered somewhat with the addition of de Laat and Maurelis 2006, they inserted a dismissive editorial comment that was not supported by any reference to peer reviewed literature and which had not been itself subjected to the formal IPCC process.

Where Are All You Climate “Skeptics” Coming From? | Alarmist Chris Mooney | Discover Magazine

Whenever I blog about the matter, though, there is always a cascade of denialist/skeptic comments, frequently of enough magnitude to overwhelm the pro-science commenters.

The Continuing, Unfortunate Effectivness of Marc Morano | The Intersection | Discover Magazine

Rush is absolutely right. The two of them are driving waves of outrage against climate scientists that are significantly influencing the media and thus, probably, public opinion. And there is, in my mind, little effective counter.

Marsha Blackburn Takes Over for Inhofe on the Climate Issue | The Intersection | Discover Magazine

It’s all here, folks: We’ve got the massive over-interpretation of “ClimateGate”, global cooling claims (both about the 1970s and about the present), the assertion that “climate change is cyclical,” that it is “unsettled science” and “it depends on whose science you’re looking at,” and so forth. It’s bad, bad news.

Blackburn is quickly becoming the new James Inhofe…

Remarks by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton At the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (December 17, 2009)

And today I’d like to announce that, in the context of a strong accord in which all major economies stand behind meaningful mitigation actions and provide full transparency as to their implementation, the United States is prepared to work with other countries toward a goal of jointly mobilizing $100 billion a year by 2020 [note all the weasel words there] to address the climate change needs of developing countries. We expect this funding will come from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance. This will include a significant focus on forestry and adaptation, particularly, again I repeat, for the poorest and most vulnerable among us.
... Without that accord, there won’t be the kind of joint global action from all of the major economies we all want to see, and the effects in the developing world could be catastrophic. We know what will happen. Rising seas, lost farmland, drought and so much else.

RealClimate: Please, show us your code

It should be a common courtesy to provide methods requested by other scientists in order to speedily get to the essence of the issue, and not to waste time with the minutiae of which year is picked to end the analysis.