Warmist Andy Revkin in denial: "this has little bearing on the overall thrust of decades of research revealing a rising human influence on the global climate system, and the logic in wise policies to limit both the pace of change and its impacts"

Another Treaty Negotiation, Another Batch of Climate Science E-Mail - NYTimes.com

In the meantime, Anthony Watts, perhaps desperate for a new raison d’être now that the relevance of his weather station investigations into global warming have evaporated, described the e-mail trove this way: “They’re real and they’re spectacular!”

...But, as was soon clear following the last release, on Nov. 21, 2009, this has little bearing on the overall thrust of decades of research revealing a rising human influence on the global climate system, and the logic in wise policies to limit both the pace of change and its impacts.

I still stand by what I wrote in August of 2010:

Do I trust climate science? As a living body of intellectual inquiry exploring profoundly complex questions, yes.

Do I trust all climate scientists, research institutions, funding sources, journals and others involved in this arena to convey the full context of findings and to avoid sometimes stepping beyond the data? I wouldn’t be a journalist if I answered yes.

It’s also important to keep in mind how little of significance the first batch of e-mails and other material contained.

The tide of debate turning on climate change

While the outlook for Durban is highly uncertain, a critical mass of countries are currently advancing landmark domestic climate change legislation at a pace that contrasts sharply with the UN-brokered talks.