Two important things to list, and one piece of idiocy

The important things are on the Climaquiddick mess going on. First, A French scientist’s temperature data show results different from the official climate science. Why was he stonewalled? Climate Research Unit emails detail efforts to deny access to global temperature data
...
Courtillot asked Phil Jones, the scientist who runs the CRU database, for his raw data, telling him (according to one of the ‘Climategate’ emails that surfaced following the recent hacking of CRU’s computer systems) “there may be some quite important information in the daily values which is likely lost on monthly averaging.” Jones refused Courtillot’s request for data, saying that CRU had “signed agreements with national meteorological services saying they would not pass the raw data onto third parties.” (Interestingly, in another of the CRU emails, Jones said something very different: “I took a decision not to release our [meteorological] station data, mainly because of McIntyre,” referring to Canadian Steve McIntyre, who helped uncover the flaws in the hockey stick graph.)
More anti-scientific hiding of data because they feared someone finding conflicting results, and they couldn't have that, now could they?

Second,
In 1999, I had a stroke of luck. I asked one of the IPCC officials for the data from which one of their maps was compiled, and I received it. I wrote a paper analyzing the results, and submitted it to Geophysical Research Letters. They just sat on it. I instead published it on John Daly’s website. Today, it is still the only paper recognized by Google on “Regional Temperature Change.”

I now know my paper was not critical enough, since we have proof that the basic data and its processing is far more dubious than I had envisaged.

I tried to update my paper and resubmit it. Nothing doing. Since the small group — revealed within the CRU emails — control most of the peer reviewers, very few peer reviewed papers which criticize that group are allowed to appear in the most prominent published literature which dominates the academic establishment.
We keep hearing about the value of peer-reviewed science, which is absolutely true; what the defenders of these clowns don't mention is that when the peer-review people don't allow people with conflicting information or views t be published then the peer-review process isn't worth crap. The last line of this piece, which has to be driving the CRU people(and a whole lot of others) up the walls,
I have only been able to find a place to release my criticisms on the internet, now the only realm where unfettered scientific discussion is possible.
Add 'unfettered political and news discussion' to the list, which is why newspapers and most major media are falling down a hole; they publish only the news they want you to hear, or how they want you to hear it, and people are tired of it.


WHich brings me to the idiocy; Insty posts this on who a lefty wants to save us, and lists some of the reasons that's a very bad idea. No link to the post in question; I'll just note that when one of the things in it is that 'there needs to be a liberal takeover of the Democrat party', well... Note that if classical liberals DID take it over, this lady would have screaming fits.