There are scientists who question this charade, and saying there aren't doesn't end the discussion.
And scientists who don't accede to the Church's demands are blacklisted for their heretical beliefs.
Back in those days, it was. I regularly got my research papers published in Nature, that august journal.Climate-gate is a serious blow to the Church, and pretending it isn't won't make it go away and end the discussion.
I also was invited to become trustee, president, vice president, or patron of over 30 organizations, including: WWF, Wildlife Trusts, YHA, Population Concern, Marine Conservation Society, Coral Cay Conservation, Galapagos Conservation Trust, Plantlife, and BTCV. I was also bestowed with media and conservation awards from around the world, including the Dutch Order of the Golden Ark, BAFTA’s Richard Dimbleby Award, and the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award for Underwater Research.
Then the global warming rot set in.
Now, I wouldn’t want to jump to any conclusions here, but it kind of looks to me like the “small group of scientists” caught out by Climategate are pretty much the same people who make up the vast and strong scientific consensus on global warming and write the official reports that the U.S. and other governments rely on to inform their policy decisions. I’m sure Dr. John P. Holdren, President Obama’s science adviser, has a plausible alternative explanation.
It's hard to admit you were scammed, but CGW acolytes, you were scammed.
Update: How would you describe the president's plan?
Barack Obama, understanding the histrionics required in climate change debates, promises that U.S. emissions in 2050 will be 83 percent below 2005 levels. If so, 2050 emissions will equal those in 1910, when there were 92 million Americans. But there will be 420 million in 2050, so Obama's promise means that per capita emissions then will be about what they were in 1875.
We'll need a lot more than just nuclear power plants if we're to make that happen--but no one, not even the president, expects that to happen. So why, I wonder, would he suggest such a thing?
Update #2: The altarboys get huffy:
A professor who is accusing global warming skeptics of engaging in “tabloid-style character assassination” of scientists, called an American climate skeptic “an assh*le” on the December 4, 2009 live broadcast of BBC’s Newsnight program.When backed into a corner, the typical leftie will resort to name-calling, even profanity. Count on it.
Update #3: Clearly, this scientist is also in a snit, and is threatening retribution to a New York Times science reporter:
Back story: Ever since Chris Horner and I were at a conference together with warmenist Michael Schlesinger of the University of Illinois a couple years ago, Chris and I have been included on Prof. Schesingler's e-mail distribution list, which usually consist of flagging climate news stories. Yesterday we got copied on this message Schlesinger sent to New York Times science reporter Andy Revkin:
Shame on you for this gutter reportage. [Emphasis added.]
This is the second time this week I have written you thereon, the first about giving space in your blog to the Pielkes.
The vibe that I am getting from here, there and everywhere is that your reportage is very worrisome to most climate scientists.
Of course, your blog is your blog.
But, I sense that you are about to experience the 'Big Cutoff' from those of us who believe we can no longer trust you, me included. [Emphasis added.]
Unbelievable and unacceptable.
What are you doing and why?
So what so annoyed Schlesinger? Here's Revkin's offending blog post, which among other things passes along the amusing story of Copenhagen prostitutes offering free sex to climate campaigners....
Apparently, threatening people whom you think aren't loyal enough to a theory is how we build a scientific consensus.
The first rule of being stuck in a hole is: quit digging.
Update #4: Here's a good summary of what's going on, including "the science", "the politics", and "the finances".
Update #5, 12/7/09: These physicists are asking the American Physical Society to rescind its political statement on climate change, at least until the extent of the CRU cheating can be determined.