Thanks for your comments.

Regarding the evidence for cherrypicking, the article is taken from the editorial at scidev.net, which we chose to reproduce in part as an item which may be of interest to our members. We consider scidev.net a reputable source, but if you would like to contact them directly regarding this matter, the relevant e-mail address is: editor@scidev.net.

As to the conflation of the combative tangle of the scientific process and the objective reality of scientific results, there is certainly a risk that some audiences may conclude that all science is to be distrusted. However, scientific results cannot be totally divorced from the process which lead to their discovery- as ‘climategate’ shows, scientific results projected as unassailable truths can become a dangerous hostage to fortune. In reality, scientific results are constantly being refined as we improve our levels of understanding. This does not negate our current levels of knowledge, nor mean that no action should be taken until we have 100% certainty about something, but instead simply recognises that our scientific understanding may yet be clarified even further in the future. This level of nuance is very difficult to convey via a media which needs a good headline, but the very fine line between scientific objectivity and social construction should nonethless be followed, and attempts to distort or tarnish scientific objectivity in light of this social nuance should be firmly addressed.

1. “The emails suggest that some university researchers may have selected favourable data in their publications to boost arguments about the severity of climate change and its origins in human activity.”

Selected favourable data? You appear to be suggesting there’s evidence of cherrypicking – I haven’t seen emails that show this happened. Could you indicate which emails you think support your view?

2. I agree that there’s a public view of scientists as “lords of certainty”, and that’s wrong. But it’s risky conflating the combative tangle of scientific progress – human and messy – with the objective reality of scientific results. The social nature of scientific inquiry doesn’t undermine the very real results science discovers. Could you clarify your views on this?

The person who deserves the Pulitzer Prize for investigative journalism is Steve McIntyre at http://climateaudit.org/ where dissection of the details is being done. The trick was to HIDE.
Is there a synonym for the word HIDE than means anything other than HIDE?

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html the apocalyptics were disgusting people for a long time over at IPCC. note Pielke in the old posts, too.

If you ask a scientist why nothing can move faster than the speed of light, he doesn’t tell you a terrible story about how koala bears will die if you don’t believe the theory is right, does he?
The UN served this to the children of the world:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_9mjBUSDng
This makes me very angry.

CO2 is not a pollutant nor will the climate be affected by 40 trillion dollars worth of lightweight, highly reflective Precautionary Headgear guaranteed to keep you cool in any weather. What’s the benefit of a multi-trillion dollar carbon derivatives bubble?

From an 11 year old:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_G_-SdAN04 home schooled, I’ll bet a dollar.

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data/#more-4660 best aggregation (with reference links)
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/smoking-guns-across-australia-wheres-the-warming/ individual plots of raw australian data. more fraud revealed.
She deserves the Pulitzer too.

Norman Davies on propaganda
Five Rules of Propaganda:
1) endless repetition, repeating the same messages over and over with different variations and combinations
2. Disfiguration: discrediting the opposition with slander and crude parodies
3. Unanimity: presenting your point of view as if every right headed person agrees with it while smearing those who doubt it using appeals of famous people, experts and so called consensus; hiding/ excluding others from the underlying basis / information of your position.
4. Transfusion: manipulating the prevailing values of the public to your own advantage
5. Simplification: reducing all facts into a comparison between ‘good and evil’ and ‘friends and enemies’

What the fellows at East Anglia and elsewhere were doing was not science.
When you actually put your own eyes on the raw data, you see what you see.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/antarctica_white_paper_final.pdf
Scratch the surface and global warming is a fraud to the bone.
It is Mann made.

Jones ’stepped aside’, Mann ‘under investigation, Gore cancels Copenhagen speech, APA petition demands repudiation of the fraud, senators investigating on the hill…

The emails and programmer’s notes reveal the vast context of ten years of intellectual corruption. They were not doing science- they were disgracing it.

The globe has been getting warmer. That’s why you can plant corn in Iowa and wheat in Kansas and why Canadians frolic in the snow. The glaciers melted. I’ll have more of that, please.

The IPCC will investigate itself.
Already 1700 subjects (scientists) have been compelled to sign a loyalty oath affirming the outcome of it in advance of its completion, so you may be sure consensus will emerge in due course.

Meanwhile, the world turns without their help or hindrance. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFbUVBYIPlI

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100019821/climategate-with-business-interests-like-these-are-we-really-sure-dr-rajendra-pachauri-is-fit-to-head-the-ipcc/

A confluence of interest.