The fallout continues...

...and in spite of rebuttals and spin, the credibility of climate science and many of its practitioners has been shattered. Bishop Hill asks...Is this the moment when reputable climatologists start to distance themselves from the Hockey Team? Judy Curry's piece at Climate Audit was the start of it, but now Hans von Storch has called for Mann and Jones to be barred from taking part in future IPCC reviews. Who else is brave enough? Now's the moment ladies and gentlemen...

...you'll also note within the leaked emails the presence of Stephen Schneider, the grandad of climatastrophe, and author of the now infamous 1989 comment..."We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public imagination we have to offer up some scary scenarios,make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have.Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective,and being honest."

If anything encapsulates the drama of the CRU leak, it is the palpable sentiment throughout the emails that the climate scientists involved are obeying Schneider's instructions to the letter. And by so doing, they have torpedoed their cause. Witness international polling re climatastrophe. Obviously the general public have serious doubts re the mechanism and the likely impact of climate change, and these doubts (although hitherto suppressed) still abound within the scientific community. To say otherwise is palpable nonsense. In Kevin Trenberth's words...The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't...See the full searchable data base here...

With such uncertainty within climatology the lie that "the science is settled" is exposed for all to see. So too, is the much trumpeted "consensus". Does this aura of scepticism, doubt and disdain do anything for science ? From Judy Curry...

"...the broader issue is the need to increase the public credibility of climate science. This requires publicly available data and metadata, a rigorous peer review process, and responding to arguments raised by skeptics. The integrity of individual scientists that are in positions of responsibility (e.g. administrators at major research institutions, editorial boards, major committees, and assessments) is particularly important for the public credibility of climate science. The need for public credibility and transparency has dramatically increased in recent years as the policy relevance of climate research has increased. The climate research enterprise has not yet adapted to this need, and our institutions need to strategize to respond to this need."

...and from the UK Taxpayers' Alliance...we're reporting (Professor Phil Jones) and his colleagues to the Information Commissioner this afternoon...