Gore Denounces Climate-change Doubters

How many years ago was it when Hillary Clinton complained on national television about a “vast rightwing conspiracy”? Those Americans who have historically been placed by political scientists as on the “Right” are surely the least homogenous group of Americans around, and those Americans are least likely of conceiving — much less participating in — a conspiracy. It is the rather independent thinking on "the Right," untouched by the tenured and subsidized officials of the climate-change industry, that has provided most of the original debate about this issue.

Climate Change Fraud - Bill Maher once again shows his complete ignorance of science and current events

Comparing (mixing up?) sulfur dioxide (SO2) with carbon dioxide (CO2) is on par with comparing skeptical scientists with holocaust deniers. Which he's done regularly in his quest to dumb down America.

Tennesee & Chumley Call On Professor Whoopie « SOYLENT GREEN

Well, boys you’re in quite a pickle. Since you can’t use any facts, why not go with Joe’s idea–roll out some “experts” on a PR tour–and don’t allow any questions. Or at least don’t let them answer any.

UN climate change claims on rainforests were wrong, study suggests - Telegraph

No one was available to respond at the IPCC yesterday.

Memorandum submitted by Stephen McIntyre (CRU 32)

1. Reconstructions of temperature over the past 1000 years have been an highly visible part of IPCC presentations to the public. CRU has been extremely influential in IPCC reconstructions through: coauthorship, the use of CRU chronologies, peer review and IPCC participation. To my knowledge, there are no 1000-year reconstructions which are truly "independent" of CRU influence. In my opinion, CRU has manipulated and/or withheld data with an effect on the research record. The manipulation includes (but is not limited to) arbitrary adjustment ("bodging"), cherry picking and deletion of adverse data. The problem is deeply rooted in the sense that some forms of data manipulation and withholding are so embedded that the practitioners and peer reviewers in the specialty seem either to no longer notice or are unoffended by the practices. Specialists have fiercely resisted efforts by outside statisticians questioning these practices - the resistance being evident in the Climategate letters. These letters are rich in detail of individual incidents. My submission today will not comment on these individual incidents (some of which I've commented on already at Climate Audit), but to try to place the incidents into context and show why they matter to the research record. I will not comment in this submission on CRUTEM issues only for space reasons.