Discover has an interview with Judith Curry, who has been one of the few people in the climate “science” community behaving with any integrity:
Are you saying that the scientific community, through the IPCC, is asking the world to restructure its entire mode of producing and consuming energy and yet hasn’t done a scientific uncertainty analysis?
Yes. The IPCC itself doesn’t recommend policies or whatever; they just do an assessment of the science. But it’s sort of framed in the context of the UNFCCC [the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change]. That’s who they work for, basically. The UNFCCC has a particular policy agenda—Kyoto, Copenhagen, cap-and-trade, and all that—so the questions that they pose at the IPCC have been framed in terms of the UNFCCC agenda. That’s caused a narrowing of the kind of things the IPCC focuses on. It’s not a policy-free assessment of the science. That actually torques the science in certain directions, because a lot of people are doing research specifically targeted at issues of relevance to the IPCC. Scientists want to see their papers quoted in the IPCC report.
But don’t say there’s confirmation bias.
Integrrity? Judith Curry is now indulging in CYA with large quantities of bs thrown about.
There’s nothing new since the CRU data release. For those who had been paying attention it was only confirmation of what we knew and /or suspected. Where was Judith before that event?
But then Discover went and did the same interview with Michael Mann. Now, I am biased, but I could not get past the first two answers he gave, I saw no reason to waste any more of my time. I cannot believe that mann has any scientific credibility at all, even answering softball questions that anyone can see are in his favor, he could not avoid spinning his answers.