Climategate revisited by the skeptics

[Aimless]

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/...ing-warmer.ars

I loved Jon Stewart's piece contrasting climategate's coverage with the coverage its debunking has received:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-epi...1-lisa-randall

4:20 Damned liberal media bias

Also love the interview with the Republican strategist. They're actually running on an anti-science platform. le sigh

[Loki]

All politicians are pro-science when the science supports their pre-existing views.

[CitizenCain]

All politicians are pro-science when the science supports their pre-existing views.

Well, pro-pseudo science, anyway. They like to have a scientific-looking whatever for the masses to bow down and surrender their wills to, but without the inconveniences of actual scientific rigor. (DUI regulations come to my mind immediately... all manner of effort put into ensuring we can measure BAC in a sicency fashion, while ignoring the fact that BAC is not well correlated with actual intoxication.)

Climate science is no different - politicians use it as an excuse to tax and control energy and don't give a shit about what the science actually says or means. So why should the rest of us?

[Draco]

^^Because you have to think of your grandchildren as one of my professors once said

[Ziggy Stardust]

Is no one commenting on the article because we, as enlightened non-politicians, were not hampered by partisan motivation and to us it was clear all along that Climate Gate wasn't such a Gate after all?

[Loki]

As someone who spends most of his time around academics, I didn't think it was all that unusual to start with.