I’m not sure why you think this. I would characterise the paper as pursuing a patrician conservative agenda. On neither economic nor social grounds can it be said to support Libertarian principles. None of its famous writers like Melanie Philips, Peter Hitchens or Richard Littlejohn can be described as straight libertarian, especially the first two.

Not that I’m defending Scientist. A person who thinks right-wing is synonymous with untrustworthy will think Walter Duranty or Edgar Snow were objective.

Interesting that the article doesn’t say what information was suppressed, only that some was. We know that Hansen withheld information, so it’s not unreasonable to suspect that the information found to be suppressed was that which was counter to the claims of warming trends and human causation.

It’s called a ‘tree’.

Cheers

Paul

60 seconds of googling finds one anecdotal account that appears to be actual reporting of fact:

“At a talk earlier this month by Dr Jim Watson, deputy director of the Sussex Energy Group and deputy leader of the Tyndall Centre’s climate change and energy programme, he said he believed in a technological solution to climate change. The room – predominantly made up of environmental campaigners – gasped in collective horror.”

http://www.theargus.co.uk/display.var.2298656.0.0.php

I know, Pseudoscientist, the reporter was biased, those weren’t really a bunch of environmentalists, they aren’t representative of all environmentalists, and the “gasp in horror” was really a big “attaboy!” for Watson.

The point is that any “environmentalist” that opposes technological solutions on the grounds that it undermines social and economic change is putting his economic and social agenda ahead of environmental concerns. The question isn’t if some do, but how many do.

I object to his absurd belief that using fossil fuels will destroy (by CO2 emissions) the planet.There has never been any credible evidence that it is happening.Then or now.

I expected better from scientists who should not be making bald unsupported statements.

What about this quote.The one you did not comment on?

“‘ I’d rather have a technology that allows us to use fossil fuels without destroying the planet, because people are going to use them anyway,’ he said.”

This coming from a scientist!

But of course no such destruction has happened.Only climate cultists will think like jehovahs witnesses.Seeing armaggedden around the corner.Always just ahead of them.

ROFLMAO!