From the perspective of climate science or policy Rep. Barton’s inquiry is simply inane
is blunt. Or:
Of course, it is doubtful that Rep. Barton’s Committee (on Energy and Commerce, I remind you) actually has any real interest in the science of climate change, except as a tool of tactical advantage in the continuing political battle over global warming. Rep. Barton and others opposed to action on climate change will continue to gnaw at the hockey stick like a dog on a bone so long as they perceive that it confers some political benefits.
The debate also consumes a lot of scarce attention on the climate issue – attention that would be better devoted to debates about policy options.
Quite right. And:
Of course, most Prometheus readers will know that the case for a human influence on climate is well established through multiple independent lines of research.
Tell me that I haven't been paying attention, but I haven't seen that unambiguously on Prometheus before. Lower down, I'd disagree with RP's tone, and he seems to have forgotten that Ammann and Wahl *have* replicated MBH. And It was clearly a mistake to use the MBH studies in the SPM is clearly wrong. Points 2 and 3 are badly wrong too, but hey you can't have everything.