[dirtboy]

However, the author completely missed the point.

From the perspective of the climate scientists involved, it seems clear that they did not trust McIntyre, did not feel that his FOI requests were legitimate scientific inquiry, and were determined to do whatever possible to resist him.

Does that exculpate them? Absolutely not. Does it explain why Phil Jones thought that private e-mails from climate researchers discussing the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC should be deleted? Nope, not at all. Does it demonstrate that scientific progress, despite supposedly being based on the accumulation of data and the testing of theories, can be a messy, messy business, full of personal intrigue and antipathies? Absolutely yes.

How about a simpler explanation? They have been committing a massive fraud for years and need to cover it up.

[supercat]

How about a simpler explanation? They have been committing a massive fraud for years and need to cover it up.

I would suggest that many of the people involved in the academic side of AGW are not lying, but rather delusional. They have become sufficiently invested in their theories that they simply cannot conceive of them being false. They have completely lost sight of what is perhaps the most fundamental scientific principle: when theory and reality disagree, no matter how much one might like one's theory, reality is correct.

Rather than trying to cast all the participants in this debacle as demons, it may be more helpful to educate the public about a couple of general scientific principles:

1. The best way to support a scientific theory is to make a real effort to find weaknesses, but be unable to do so. (Note that this is also the proper way to demonstrate security). Real scientists should welcome such efforts; scientists who don't welcome such efforts will often find it hard to avoid regarding their theories as superior to reality.
2. It is possible for many scientists to share a common blindness to reality; self-selected "peer review" systems are not an effective defense against such failings.

Many liberals are going to find it hard to accept that anthropogenic global warming is an imaginary phenomenon; they would find it easier to believe that the scientists who confirm the authenticity of their emails are only doing so because someone's threatening to harm their families. What may be best is to try to convince people that the researchers were overzealous in their conclusions, and that the data needs to be analyzed more carefully and objectively before we commit to any expensive policy changes. Even someone who's thoroughly infested with Liberal Mind Fog will usually be amenable to the idea of things needing further study.

[supercat]

They have been committing a massive fraud for years and need to cover it up.

Addendum: I suspect many of the academic AGW proponents have been willing to authenticate their emails because they believe that AGW is real and that people will recognize that there's not really anything wrong with exaggerating things a little to help motivate the public. Regrettably, I'm not sure they're entirely wrong.