Pay attention to the names in Plaitt's article and others. Plaitt thanks Dana Nuccitelli and Michael Mann for their "helpful comments." I know who Nuccitelli is, and even you must know who Michael Mann is. This isn't the only place they went to spread the Official Word.

I suspect as soon as this started making news (and I posted about it here before that) the call went out to squash this. Incidentally, I will readily grant that many out there made more of this one piece of data than it deserved.

One funny part about Plaitt's article is him grousing about "cherry-picking" when the whole article is about choosing one study's results over another's.

My original posting on this on Sunday, before the subject ever hit the news and radio shows, was as follows:

Robert:

I was wondering if your time wandering in the wilderness had included any reflection or self-examination, whether you’d suffered any growth or evolution. But now I know: Not one tiny infinitesimal little bit!

I think, but one crucial point remains unclear: Are you still four-square behind denial of global warming? How’s the weather over on your side of the Valley?

Heh. I fished around on the internet, found a small trout in the milk--there's usually one or two a week--and plugged it in.

Funny you should ask.

Latest from NASA on Antarctica.

“But hey, we guarantee things will go to hell in a few decades, so for God’s sake keep that AGW funding coming!”

I could post a couple things like this every day if I bothered.

What I’ve found really fascinating about this subject is that anti-AGW research studies are assumed to be utterly corrupted by their anti-AGW funding, but somehow pro-AGW research funding from governments and other organizations (which is vastly larger) is never assumed to even tilt any of the research results on that side.

Most of the rest of my comments since then have been on that sidebar about money "corruption," and nobody's really addressed the fundamental disconnect there.