Look, I agree with you on many points you cover on your blog. Yes, CO2 causes warming. Yes, the earth is warming, as measured from the LIA. Claiming that CO2 is the only cause is naive at best. What about land use changes and deforestation? What about soot? How does this all interact in a complex environment. I’d believe the climate scientists more if they presented more logical, rational points rather than the alarmist claims that 1/2 degree change in the average temperature is causing unrepairable damage. A big part of the problem is that the climate discussion has become too politicized, especially with expensive “solutions” that will accomplish nothing, it is hard not to get cynical. When even the “lukewarmer” scientists are ridiculed it is hard to take the alarmist seriously. I’d be happy to see way more science and way less politics. By the way, how that carbon trading system in Europe working out?

Either you have no clue what peer-review means, or you refuse to understand it.

And, if you can’t or won’t understand that, no result of any review of “climategate” would satisfy you, unless it only supports your own pre-conceived ideas.

So instead of dealing with disappointment that this whole climategate thing fizzled out on you, you now claim the review is a whitewash.

So how does this whitewash thingy work? Who’s involved? What’s their motivation?

See. It sounds like a conspiracy.

Oh. I forgot. You refuse to see.

http://co2realist.com/2010/07/20/new-scientist-editorial-is-on-the-mark/

I never said it was a conspiracy, I do agree that the “investigations” were whitewashes.