Whew, has this become a firestorm in the blogosphere…
Charlie Martin: Global Warminggate, what does it all mean?
The hackers released about 172 megabytes of data, and we can be sure examining it closely will take some time. But after a few days, certain things are beginning to become clear.
* The data appears to be largely, perhaps entirely, authentic.
* The emails are incendiary.
* The implications shake the scientific basis for AGW, and the scientific reputations of some of AGW’s major proponents, to their roots
Wretchard @ Belmont Club weighs in.
In one e-mail, the center’s director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University’s Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” Jones writes. “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal,” Mann writes.
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor,” Jones replies.
Ann Althouse also notes this gem:
The “don’t you step out of line” approach to scientific discourse.
Update: The strange case of the deleted Emails. Or: when FOIA becomes FOAD.
Update 2: William Briggs, “statistician to the stars”, has a must-read piece on how scientists are just people.
I am a scientist and I have lived around fellow scientists for many years and I know their feeding habits well. I therefore know that the members of our secular priesthood are ordinary folk. But civilians were blind to this fact because our public relations department has labored hard to tell the world of our sanctity. “Scientists use peer review which is scientific and allows ex cathedra utterances. Amen.” But… “[C]limategate” … ha[s] revealed the truth that scientists are just people and that peer review is saturated with favoritism, and this has shocked many civilians. It has shaken their faith and left them sputtering. They awoke to the horrible truth: Scientists are just people!
Now all the world can see that scientists, like their civilians brothers, are nasty, brutish, and short-tempered. They are prejudiced, spiteful, and just downright unfriendly. They are catty, vindictive, scornful, manipulative, narrow-minded, and nearly incapable of admitting to a mistake. And they are cliquey.
Go read the whole thing, as they say. See also this commentary at The Blogmocracy.
Update 3: Tom Maguire points out a major howler in the WaPo story linked above:
The evidence that humans are changing the world’s climate is “unequivocal”? Cmon! Here is the [IPCC] summary report. What is described as “unequivocal” is the proposition that global warming is actually occurring (p. 2). As to whether that warming is caused in part by human activity, well, that is viewed as “very likely”, i.e., more than a 90% probability.
Note “in part” (emphasis mine). If you happen to think that human activity is a minor perturbation compared to natural changes, then you would still agree to this statement, yet you would be considered an “AGW denier” by the more overheated AGW advocates.
Update 4: Nigel Lawson weighs in, in The Times (of London) “Copenhagen will fail, and quite right too”. A teaser:
Astonishingly, what appears, at least at first blush, to have emerged is that (a) the scientists have been manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend; (b) they have consistently refused outsiders access to the raw data; (c) the scientists have been trying to avoid freedom of information requests; and (d) they have been discussing ways to prevent papers by dissenting scientists being published in learned journals.
Update 5: former climatology professor Tim Ball weighs in.
Update 7: Declan McCullagh weighs in.
Update 8: Mark Steyn: “Eine Decliner Nachtmusik”
Update 9: And here comes… John Holdren!
Update 10: ‘snork’ at The Blogmocracy has a roundup.