Pearce wrote a mainstream media article in which he wrote “Gavin said the science was settled”, whereas Gavin didn’t say that, or anything like it, at least in my interpretation of how that loaded term is usually meant.

Surely you are aware of the baggage that the term “settled science” has. Used as a rhetorical weapon (its most prevalent use), it carries accusations of a) ignoring/downplaying uncertainty and b) being unscientific and c) stifling dissent.

Gavin thinks that the root of the conflict has much more to do with the (perceived) consequences of climate change and of mitigation strategies (my paraphrase of him calling it “political”). Discussing conflict resolution without discussing the root cause (as Gavin sees it) didn’t make a hell lot of sense to him. You may not agree with his assessment of what the root cause of conflict is, but is position is entirely coherent and has nothing to do with the withered meaning of “settled science”.

I expanded on this at my blog:
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2011/02/04/lisbon-reconciliation-unsettling/

this
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/7752098/can_the_united_states_government_steal.html?cat=17

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/the-bore-hole/comment-page-4/#comment-200622

So they get this

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/the-bore-hole/comment-page-4/#comment-200622

Let us see how strong the pen really is.

I’d say they absorbed something: the need to be Clintonian in their denials, deceptions and obstructions. The science doesn’t need to be discussed or debated (except he didn’t say it was “settled”); there is no search for truth, just reinforcement of their position; they don’t need to release data or methods even under legal subpoena; when finally pinned down on their obfuscation, it’s all “old news”, everyone should just press on.

It’s sickening enough to see this behavior in politicans from whom we expect it — positively revolting from someone who calls himself a scientist.

That’s political.

A fatwa is quite accurate.

You mean like when he tried to correspond with Caspar Ammann?

“why would I even bother answering your questions, isn’t that just lost time? ” – http://climateaudit.org/2008/08/06/well-well-look-what-the-cat-dragged-in/

Or Jones?
“We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. …”
Cheers Phil

http://climateaudit.org/2009/11/25/willis-eschenbachs-foi-request/