Here's one thing they concluded: «Phil Jones, of the University of East Anglia, was acting «in line with common
practice in the climate science community» when he refused to share his raw data and computer codes with critics.»
The move, part of a climate science planning report sent today to Congress, will likely further normalize discussion of deliberate tinkering with the atmosphere to cool the planet, and of directly collecting carbon from the sky, both topics once
verboten in the climate science community.
I fear, though, that such a site only reinforces the misperception that controversy
rages in the climate science community as to the existence or climate change and / or whether humans play a role in a warming planet.
The effects of very short wavelength UV on photochemical reactions in the stratosphere leading to heating at very high altitudes is something that is under
appreciated in the climate science community but the meterologists would have likely let them know when to look for these affects.
More importantly, the public need to correctly perceive that scientists who reject the consensus are a vanishingly small
minority in the climate science community, which shows an overwhelming and strengthening consensus.
By then not only climate scientists, but I would think a large part of the global population will be fully aware of the dangerous consequences of global warming and the urgency of public policies to reduce carbon emissions — thanks in a large part to Dr. Mann, James Hansen and many other vocal
figures in the climate science community.