From McIntyre:

Does the statement that they looked at “journal articles, OP-ED columns, newspaper and magazine articles, the NAS report and various blogs on the internet” constitute acceptable “documentation” at Penn State for a freshman essay, much less for an Inquiry Report required to provide “sufficient detail to permit a later assessment, if necessary, of the reasons for determining that an investigation was not warranted”.

OUCH!

The PSU report is nothing more than a summary: we don't have a clue about which Op-Eds were considered; which blogs were read; which emails they considered (any of Mann's private ones that were not purloined from the CRU?); what Mann said when interviewed; what the total number of persons interviewed might have been, much less their identity or what they might have said (tell me they interviewed more than just the two they indicated by name); whether or not "hide the decline" came up; what role, if any, Wegman report played; etc.

O'Connor's blog used to present a feisty, conservative, but engaging voice that found genuine left-wing pieties to deflate. Alas, the last few times I looked, I see shrill and unpersuasive conspiracy-drivel from the far right predominating. The whole "Climategate" fantasy is unpersuasive -- not because some of the scientists involved may have misbehaved in various ways, mostly minor, but because the indignation that "Climategate" attempts to arouse makes sense only if there is vast global conspiracy to invent most of contemporary climate science. And the normal, Occam's razor response to such conspiracy theories is "cui bono". In truth, the gains proposed for such a conspiracy are risible, whereas the very real interests of the anthropogenic-climate change deniers are ignored. But O'Connor buys into the conspiracy (which is the only thing that could justify the outrage over the 'crimes' of Mann et al.) and even cites Imhofe (though with her nose scrunched up) as a neutral and 'independent' investigator. Pity.

PQuincy -- Climategate is not a fantasy. You should read the English papers, left and right. They are covering what the MSM in this country won't touch. The IPCC has been caught in so many self-serving "errors" at this point--with so many dollars attached to them--that even the head of Greenpeace is calling for its leader to step down.

Meanwhile, Parliament is looking into possible criminal connections between the UEA emails and a major carbon trading scam centered in the European Climate Exchange. Billions of dollars are wrapped up in this mess--and it's hardly "shrill" or "conspiracy-driven" of me to link to reputable papers that point that out. For the record, I don't have an investment in what the truth is -- what I do have an investment in is not having some forged version of the truth forced on me and everyone else on the globe. If AGW turns out to be real--then so be it, and let's adjust. But the conduct of the scientists that have led the way in arguing for AGW has been in some very key cases reprehensible--and that warps everything beyond all reckoning.

More warping beyond reckoning--your own comment, which twists my posts and claims to have special access to my motives -- and which can't even manage to quote me right. I noted that Imhofe called for an independent investigation--and also that he's operating from a possibly agenda-driven stance as a climate skeptic. You summarize that by stating that I describe Imhofe as "a neutral and 'independent' investigator." Give me a break.

Worth reading: Margaret Wente's Globe and Mail column, which outlines the issues and then frames the problem quite nicely:

None of this is to say that global warming isn't real, or that human activity doesn't play a role, or that the IPCC is entirely wrong, or that measures to curb greenhouse-gas emissions aren't valid. But the strategy pursued by activists (including scientists who have crossed the line into advocacy) has turned out to be fatally flawed.

By exaggerating the certainties, papering over the gaps, demonizing the skeptics and peddling tales of imminent catastrophe, they've discredited the entire climate-change movement. The political damage will be severe. As Mr. Mead succinctly puts it: “Skeptics up, Obama down, cap-and-trade dead.” That also goes for Canada, whose climate policies are inevitably tied to those of the United States.

“I don't think it's healthy to dismiss proper skepticism,” says John Beddington, the chief scientific adviser to the British government. He is a staunch believer in man-made climate change, but he also points out the complexity of climate science. “Science grows and improves in the light of criticism. There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can't be changed.” In his view, it's time to stop circling the wagons and throw open the doors. How much the public will keep caring is another matter.

PQuincy — I have a simple question for you: do you believe that anthropogenic global warming is a theory or settled science?

Minerva: that is not an either/or question. Yes, of course AGW is a theory. It is one with considerable support, but many of whose details are still unclear, and which is very much in play among the scientists involved.

I apologize if I mischaracterized O'Connor's statement on Imhofe. As for independent inquiries, which I certainly think are acceptable (if they don't become a form of SLAPP), the latest English papers reporting on that independent inquiry say: "They did not subvert the peer review process to censor criticism as alleged, the panel found, while key data needed to reproduce their findings was freely available to any "competent" researcher."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/07/climategate-review-clears-scientists-dishonesty

But the more important point is this: the entire debate about the scientists misses the point. Their misbehavior has no consequences for whether climate is changing or not.

Moreover, focusing on the debate over some scientists, and not on the pretty impressive consensus that some kind of AGW is underway (with mechanism and potential pathways the subject of intense and contentious debate, as they should be) has consequences, in policy and in politics. Even if the researchers involved were total fraudsters -- which, frankly, no one serious has alleged -- it would not matter.

One last point: when O'Connor points to the potential corruption and manipulation of cap-and-trade systems in Europe (and proposed for the US), I'm entirely willing to listen to critiques, exactly because "billions" are at stake. Again, 'cui bono'.