RFK Jr: Inhofe a ‘prostitute’, ‘big oil’s top call girl’ | JunkScience.com

Limbaugh mispoke. RFK Jr. actually took the time to type it out.

Aus: Farm exports to rise by 10 per cent (more “global warming” please) | JunkScience.com

After a punishing period of drought, which plagues Australia and always has, Australian farmers are enjoying some the all-too-rare good times.

New South Wales: Premier spikes Lord Mayor’s city-of-bikes strategy | JunkScience.com

At last good sense is prevailing. Perhaps we can now undo the damage wrought by green lunatic Clover Moore, one of the most anti car, anti commerce, anti practicality dimwits ever put in a position of responsibility in a major city.

Peter Foster: ‘Fakegate’ latest climate clash | FP Comment | Financial Post

Mr. Gleick demonstrates, however, that once you abandon honesty you also likely abandon effectiveness. Insofar as that effectiveness relates to peddling ideology cloaked in science, less of it is much to be desired.

Climate scientist Judith Curry, of the Georgia Institute of Technology, suggested that Mr. Gleick’s idea of scientific integrity in fact amounted to loyalty to the UN’s climate “ideology,” which involves demonizing deniers and the fossil fuel industry.

This week, Heartland announced a legal team to “represent the organization in connection with Peter Gleick’s fraudulent conduct.” Mr. Gleick has reportedly retained the lawyer used by Andy Fastow of Enron. Forensic investigation into the origins of the fake strategy document continue.

Darn polluting scientists: Seedy scientists are polluting Antarctica | JunkScience.com

First it was antibiotic-resistant bacteria – now scientists are polluting Antarctica with weeds. Some could take root, reshaping Antarctica’s unique wilderness forever.

Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog: Are Media Apologists Good for Climate Science?

Journalists, like everyone else, have their biases and perspectives. And on the issue of climate change journalists are as prone as any of us to the seductive siren of tribalism, with good guys on one side and evil ones on the other. But does this framing actually serve the interests of the broader climate science community?  I think not.