You Know it Has to Be A Skeptic Writing When You See This | Climate Skeptic

Really? You shared your data, were criticized, and are modifying your approach based on this criticism? I thought from the study of the habits of mainstream climate scientists the correct scientific procedure was to 1) hide your data like it was Russian nuclear secrets; 2) prevent any opposing view from getting published; and 3) defend a flawed methodology by getting 10 of your friends to use the same methodology and summarize it all in an IPCC spaghetti graph.

NC Media Watch: NRDC Declares California in danger if global warming is not stopped

The warmest year was 1934 and there has been no statistically significant warming over the last 80 years.

- Bishop Hill blog - That IoP submission

[Peter Gill] It would be more than a little interesting to discover how my name became associated with the IOP's submission at all as no IOP Officer admits that he or she was the source of this information. It seems likely to me that whoever told the Guardian almost certainly did so to discredit the submission by associating it with a sceptical view of the AGW science; in fact the bias of the subgroup is in the other direction. Nevertheless, it was my colleagues who were largely responsible for the submission, a document that, frankly, I would have preferred to have been stronger. What is clear is that the saboteur was successful, not least because the IOP appeared to lack transparency by not listing the contributors to the submission.

- Bishop Hill blog - Media blitz

In the comments, I am asked if there is a coordinated programme of stories in the media on warmist themes. I think the answer may well be yes.