Peter Gleick's Pacific Institute Return - NYTimes.com

[Revkin comment] You completely missed the points I made in February. Even if you accept his action as moral, you then have to examine it in terms of impact.

He's essentially removed himself from what could otherwise be years of serious engagement on climate policy, from important work on scientific ethics, and even from joining Mike Mann in public engagement on curbing emissions. (The subtext of the Pacific Institute statement sure seems to imply a withdrawal from direct advocacy, although I could be wrong.)

Gleick was the lead organizer of the Science letter from 255 National Academy of Sciences members pushing back on Climategate. Do you think he'll be in a position to repeat that any time soon? http://www.pacinst.org/climate/

Any impact on Heartland from his actions has to be gauged in comparison to any substantive impact you think Heartland had on climate discourse or decisions at levels that matter. Can you list for me the group's real-world accomplishments and then say Peter's actions did anything except hurt himself?

Pachauri, McKibben to speak at BIG Green Week in Bristol, UK | JunkScience.com

Presumably Pachauri and McKibben will then have to hot-foot it to Rio to take part in Rio+20, where they will tell the world to cut down on air travel and live a simpler, more sustainable life style.

New Study Rains On The Anthropogenic Climate Change Charade. Finds Decadal/Centennial-Scale Fluctuations

Centennial time scale? This would indicate something more at work than ocean cycles, whic are internal in the climate system, and suggests that other natural, external cycles are at work. However, IPCC scientists like to suggest that these natural factors no longer play a role today, that they stopped working a hundred years ago, and so leave them out of their climate models.

220 Years Of Droughts And Floods In Australia | Real Science

Proof positive that Gillard, Flannery, and Garnaut are either idiots or crooks.