Nate Silver - blogger.

Timothy Gardner - Reuters reporter.

George Monbiot - Guardian blogger/reporter.  Who later had this to say.

Andrew Revkin - NYT environment reporter.

Andrew Revkin again.

Andrew Revkin, a third time.

Juliet Eilperin - Washington Post reporter.

Juliet Eilperin again.

Andrew Freedman - a weatherman interviewing a science historian.

Andrew Freedman again - interviewing a climate scientist with a dog in the hunt.

Geof Styles - blogger on a B2B social networking site.  Quite reasonable, though.

Michael Tobis - another blogger on Styles' B2B social networking site.

Robert Read - blogger.

Ed Darrell - blogger.

Ed Darrell again.

Kim Zetter - Wired reporter.

Joe Romm - editor, Climate Progress.  'Trusted' by Paul Krugman and Tom Friedman!

Joe Romm again.

Bud Ward - editor, Yale Forum.

Unattributed ('group') - Real Climate blog.

'gavin' - Real Climate blog.

Sources? - yes.  21? - not exactly.  Credible? - open to debate, save a couple.  Apologists? - almost entirely.  Completely missing/ignoring the points raised by an 'unknown blogger with no credentials whatsoever'? - absolutely.

Given your fetish for credentials, I'm surprised at your list.

Speaking of unknown bloggers with no credentials whatsoever, here's a blog in defense of CRU's data handling practices which (I suspect unintentionally) reveals much of what's wrong with AGW 'science' - such as it is.

The videos at this link are from Bob Carter, a geologist* from Australia.  I first viewed them spring of last year, shortly after they were published.  For the longest time I couldn't remember his name and had lost track of them but stumbled across them again today.

*Far as I know, that's someone with some credentials.

Just to head him off at the pass, there was an article published in the Sydney Herald critical & dismissive of Bob Carter, but his presentation and other works speak for themselves.

I'm sure he'll be similarly dismissed because he got the occasional paycheck from an oil company (imagine - a geologist of value to an oil company?).  Why bother with content when you can take the lazy way out?

What I've found most concerning about this is how some media outlets I trusted to at least try and appear impartial (even if they aren't fully) have just ignored this issue completely. For example the BBC devoted an article about it, where all they said was that the emails had been hacked, and refused to spend 1 line discussing their content. Contrast this to the telegraph (linked from the OP's link) which gives you content of some of the more eye catching emails. Not to say the telegraph is impartial of course, but at least they don't seem to try to hide their lack of it.

However this list was in response to ID's complaint that the MSM was not covering the issue. I submit that Reuters, the New York Times and the Washington Post are all members of said MSM which disproves ID's point. Also the Real Climate blog is of interest in that it contains many replies from the actual scientists involved.

But perhaps you're mistaking my position. I'm not saying that the hacked CRU emails mean *nothing*. But I have seen no smoking gun related to manipulating data. I've seen disdain for the deniers which frankly I can't blame. I've seen nothing that overturn's the bulk of the consensus scientific opinion on global warming which is that it *is* occurring and *is* at least in part caused by man.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change, "Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions."

Also as I mentioned in my first reply, I'm perfectly willing to consider that there is plenty to argue about as to the magnitude, timing and even whether or not we can actually do something about AGW. My own personal opinion is that dramatic changes have been predicted for quite some time and have yet to appear and while that does cause me to doubt that the world is about to end anytime soon that doesn't mean that I don't think it's possible that we could reach some kind of positive feedback tipping point that could result in dramatic changes in what could be a geological instant yet still be scores if not hundreds of years. That doesn't mean I think that such a tipping point is probable either.

In the end I agree there's probably more we don't know than we know. But as I said, to pretend global warming doesn't exist when ice shelfs and glaciers are melting all over the world along with the arctic and to pretend that all the stuff we've been pumping into the atmosphere for the last hundred years has done nothing is just silly. Particularly when *most* such talk comes directly from those doing the most pumping.

The emails are legitimate, and clearly of interest to the public. The university itself has also commeted on some of the emails, and offered their own explanation, so there is nothing to stop the BBC publishing the content of the email, and also the university's explanation alongside it. They don't need to give an opinion themselves, but I would expect them at the very least to report the basic facts+evidence.

Of course it's only the university's admission that the emails *appear* to be legitimate along with *some* of the authors acknowledging their emails and explaining what they meant that makes them legitimate.

[On a separate note, I highlight my qualifiers since *virtually* no one seems to remember them even when they explicitly appear in a quote used in their response, not that I expect it to do much good.]

However, I would expect that if they were to publish the emails, it would be most in character for them to publish *all* of them without comment and let the reader make their own decision. I very much doubt that the BBC would cherry pick only those emails deemed salacious. As we all know any kind of selection of which emails to publish is in effect a comment in and of itself.

Therefore it’s most likely that it’s the shear volume of the emails that stops the BBC from publishing them.

If the BBC were to publish the emails along with university or author comment then as a reputable news organization they would feel required to give equal time to the critics and that merely devolves into he said, she said which is another reason that I think the BBC (as well as ABC, NBC, CBS and even the CBC) is staying away from any direct commentary.

Actually as I’ve said there’s really *no* thing proven by any of these emails. I would expect again that *reputable* news sources would tend to stay away from direct comment until, and *if*, something other than speculation on the part of critics comes out of it.

On another separate note I do find the idea of "equal time" somewhat offensive. The result of this is that on any issue, no matter how one sided it is, as in this case where 99.9% of all scientific evidence is clearly on one side versus the side that is equally clearly pretty much limited to those vested corporate interests that financially benefit by being against it, is to give *equal* say to both sides in the news. This gives the appearance of legitimacy to even fringe crackpots like AGW deniers and teabaggers.

So the real question is where do you think you're actually going with this? Are *most* of you folks really deluded enough to think that this will make the least amount of difference in the consensus scientific opinion of AGW or in any global warming policy? Or are you all simply crying into your beer?

Personally I make no claim to be anything of an AGW expert. First off AGW isn't particularly *that* important a topic for me. I merely base my opinion on the facts as I see them, the most germane of which was that previously quoted line from the wiki article.

Here's a clip from Senator Inhofe (R-ExxonMobil) where he actually has the audacity to claim "We won, you lost, now get a life."

This is so stupid on so many levels. Primarily because the deniers have won nothing and secondly because that phrase could come back to haunt you folks on things like healthcare or a hundred other issues where the right is so obstinate on maintaining the status quo. However it's doubtful that the left will respond in kind when the shoe is on the other foot because there's no benefit to do so. Gloating is for children, any adult knows that things ebb and flow and what goes around comes around. For 20 out of the last 28 years the right has had its turn and has virtually nothing to show for it except for a packed supreme court and temporary tax cuts soon to expire.

If this is your victory then it is phyricc indeed so by all means wallow in it, see how far it gets you.

No delusion it appears:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018003/climategate-five-aussie-mps-lead-the-way-by-resigning-in-disgust-over-carbon-tax/

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100018034/climategate-%20%20e-mails-sweep-america-may-scuttle-barack-obamas-cap-and-trade-laws/

I'm a bit too lazy to find a less obviously biased article, but the central point of them is that this hacking incident is having an impact that is affecting policy relating to global warming. Long term I don't it will have too much of an effect though, especially if future years continue to earn records for how hot they are.

Okay, I have gone through this many times with this silly argument. I will try one more time. AGW as you call it is real. It is a fact. It was proven 40 years ago when "reasonable people" believed that we were headed into the next ice age by 1970. The facts are this, the sun, that bright shiny thing in the sky is growing older and weaker. As it ages it expands. At one time Venus was habitable. The habitability zone has moved away from there and we have the benefit of that zone, we are at the edge of that zone now and things are starting to heat up. This is evidenced by Mars, which is also getting warmer as documented by probes sent there since the 70's.

According to the IPCC report, and if you take every thing they say as fact. Man does increase the warmth of this planet by an amazing 6 one hundredth of one degree over the next 100 years. I read the reports and that is their conclusion not my interpretation of what they said. Now the alarmist scream that the temp will rise by as much as 10 degrees in the next hundred years but the science says different. We had a warming stage that went form 1950 to 1980 and we have been cooling the last 20 years, making it very hard to reach the 10 degrees, or the 2.4 degrees that NASA predicts. All because of the sun and what it does, sunspots have stopped so we are going to get cooler not warmer. When the sun starts up again we will get warmer. Either way the sun is still expanding and since we can't stop the sun from expanding unless, according to my calculations, we take all the hydrogen from the planets Jupiter and Saturn compress them until it reaches a metallic state and then inject it into the sun prior to combustion. this will fix the situation for almost a million years. since we don't have this ability there is nothing that can be done.

Conclusion: we don't have the power or the ability to do anything to this planet other than destroy man. The planet will have one maybe two more ice ages and then we will no longer be able to live on this planet. We can not save this planet. We cannot stop AGW. Wait, we can stop it but it would require us to put out the sun and since it is the only source of heat for the solar system that would be a bad thing.

Keep in mind that a volcano when it erupts puts out 14 billion tons of carbon a day, there are on average 56 volcanoes erupting world wide daily. The little bit of carbon humans produce yearly is less than one volcano in a day. Do you really think that the Earth knows we are here?

100 million years ago the atmosphere could not sustain humans. The animals that thrived at that time consumed carbon and sulfur leaving the oxygen, we came along and we consume oxygen and produce carbon. Man made global warming is a hoax.

Just so you know I have been studying this crap on and off since Earth day 1970 when I was freezing my butt off cleaning the forest to save us from the coming ice age. Back then we had 20 years to fix it or we would all freeze to death. Now we have only ten years to fix AGW or we will all burn to death.

With those facts, do you still think it is justified to wreck the world’s economy, stop most progress, and live as if we were back in the 1600's just to reduce the average global temperature by 6/100 of one degree over the next century?

Doctor Roy Spencer Climatologists Takes no money from “evil oil” or any one connected to oil companies. He is board certified and is current and well respected around the world on the subject. He and about 14 thousand other climatologists agree with him. Of the 700 scientist that are the consensus for this global warming hoax most have changed their position in the last three years. Are you suggesting that they changed sides because they received money from big oil? Or could it be that, like the Australian climatologist that most of the modeling was based on found errors and withdrew his part until he could make corrections and was attacked for doing so and is no longer credible in the pro-global warming gang. Reputations are at stake here and people are running for cover because in science your reputation is all that matters. The ones that are still on the AGW band wagon are people that can’t be hurt by a bad reputation. Of last reports, the “hacker” is believed to be someone inside the institution that is trying to save his reputation by leaking the information of people breaking the laws of the land to sustain global warming. If this report is true then he is not a hacker but a whistle blower. Someone from the inside trying to warn us of the hoax.

Nice how the clip was out of context. The quote was a jibe at the Senator because when an objection was made earlier this year he was told “we won the election, you lost, get a life”. In that context, he was joking rather than making a statement. I can see by your writing that you have not been paying attention to what has happened in the House of Representatives or the senate. Of those 20 out of 28 years you state only 7 of them did the right have control.

I stand corrected, the last two years of the Reagan administration, the first two years of the Bush administration, the last too years of the Clinton administration and the first two years of the Bush administration. so that is 8 out of 28.

In particular I point you to the Reuters article that I referenced earlier that stated "there are many reasons why the climate bill could choke, but it won't be about a group of e-mails."

As far as cap and trade like I said I'm by no means a AGW expert nor do I even follow environmental legislation all that closely. In particular I have no real clue as to the provisions of Cap and Trade and so am by no means sure that I even favor it. In general while I fully believe AGW, subject of course to the caveats that I've mentioned multiple times of questions about magnitude, timing and what can actually be done about it, I am far less in favor of what I would consider "extreme" action against US corporations that would put them in a competitive disavantage with respect to companies of other countries.

In particular I'm very much against anything that would result in payments from the US and other developed countries to underdeveloped countries on the basis that we've been allowed to pollute and therefore should pay them for not polluting. I think I may be mistaking provisions of cap and trade for provisions of the copenhagen summit but hopefully my point is clear.

I support *reasonable* controls on companies and taxes on the obvious externalities of pollution in general of which carbon emissions are simply one of many. I'm a bit leery of a complicated system that could allow polluters to continue polluting via some slight of hand means. I'm more in favor of simply requiring a gradual reduction in carbon emissions from all industries in parallel.

But I don't support putting American companies out of business in the process nor as mentioned above do I support payments from developed countries to undeveloped countries to try and force the undeveloped world to not pollute as well. Instead I would support pollution control (of which carbon is only a subset) of the undeveloped world as a precondition for allowing them access to our markets (along with other things like human rights, child labor laws and anything related that insures a level playing field).

This is at least the fourth time I've stated this in this very thread. *I* never made any such claim that we had ten years to do anything. As I've repeatedly stated the precise magnitude of AGW, or the time period over which it will occur or even whether we really can do anything about it or not are *all* legitimate questions. It's just that the preponderance of scientific opinion is so overwhelming that the only thing I can conclude is that AGW is real and at least partially man made.

If you wish to change my opinion and the 90% of the planet that agrees with me then don't direct your arguments at me, direct them to whomever it will have most effect of changing the preponderance of scientific opinion because otherwise all you're really doing is blowing more hot air out your ass. When you can change the scientific consensus is when I will admit that you know what you're talking about. Otherwise all you are is a random nickname on the net. With all due respect of course.