“Mr Stringer moved to have the report urge that it is “vital that these two inquiries have at least one member each who is a reputable scientist, and is sceptical of anthropogenic climate change.” The rest of the committee voted this suggestion down, arguing that scepticism was a proper attitude expected of all, rather than the badge of a preceding conviction. Steve McIntyre, a retired Canadian mining consultant whose blog, Climate Audit, has been the source for much detailed critique of climate reconstructions, including those of CRU, might, though not an academic, be the sort of person Mr Stringer is thinking of. For his part, Mr McIntyre says that his preference would not be for someone sceptical of anthropogenic global warming per se, but rather for someone familiar with the detailed issues that he and others have raised—or, better yet, for a judge.”

The article also referred to the “apparently stolen” e-mails – has that issue been resolved at all?

Here’s hoping that someday this site will only have to address reasonable differences of opinion on what causes climate change and where the planet is heading.

There was only one story on them in the US in the first two weeks after Nov. 19, and relatively little in the UK. Coverage elsewhere in the world even up until now has been sparse — e.g., virtually nothing in Australia.