The issue is not the emails. The emails are just the icing on the cake. The issue is the data. Here are some quotes from the poor bastard working at and for HCRU who was trying to make some sense of the data set:

"Uses "corrected" MXD - but shouldn't usually plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures."

"Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1940 to avoid the decline"

"getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. so many new stations have been introduced, so many false references.. so many changes that aren't documented. Every time a cloud forms I'm presented with a bewildering selection of similar-sounding sites, some with references, some with WMO codes, and some with both. And if I look up the station metadata with one of the local references, chances are the WMO code will be wrong (another station will have it) and the lat/lon will be wrong too."

"the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was."

"As far as I can see, this renders the station counts totally meaningless. ... Of course, it's too late for me to fix it too."

"Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!"

You can find all these and many more documented at http://tinyurl.com/ycr4jq3 -- and yet this is the 'settled science' on the basis of which our beloved leaders want to spend billions of dollars of our money.

Bear in mind too that the other datasets on which the AGW hypothesis is based follow it closely, and are kept just as secret as this one was before Climategate: does this seem to you like the behaviour of a group with nothing to hide?

A very good article Fred Pearce.

Now, just watch the holes in the wordwork, as seen in the 1st comment.

Fred, this is a beautifully written piece of mitigation. It also serves to draw attention away from the indefensible issues surrounding the CRU leak.

Jon J is spot on when pointing to the data not the emails.

I find it quite outrageous that Fred can talk about the easy defense of the emails yet fail to address the core issues of data integrity, data manipulation, coding errors, flawed database access paths and lack of integrated legacy code.

If we are to accept the output of these systems as so critical to massive social, political, industrial and economic changes, the above problems render output as totally invalid.

In the real world any computer programs in production, those of your suppliers and your downstream customers must carry ISO 9000 (International) or AS 35XX (Australian) certification. Without such certification those applications are considered non-compliant rubbish.

The CRU applications are not ISO 9000 compliant and should be removed from production immediately. The UK Government tender conditions mandate ISO 9000 compliance, audit and certification. How did Hadley/CRU/EAU obtain massive funding from the UK Government, via the Met Office, without mandatory quality compliance?

The answer, grants! What a lovely stunt.

Fred, you really need to understand that the core tools of your science are computer programs. AGW science is generated by the uncertified blunt force trauma of legacy code. Imagine yourself as a micro-surgeon and being satisfied with a rusty saw and a hammer. You should be ashamed and embarrassed by any association with these scientific hacks.

Stop mitigating and focus your energy upon those who have brought your profession into disrepute.

Q&A, I feel your pain, you have every right to be angry and you have invested much. The first stage is anger/denial. Without your acceptance of being “had” you are at risk of getting “stuck” within the trauma cycle never to emerge.

"Lots of people believe in UFOs. It doesn’t make them right. Lots of people don’t believe in man-made climate change. It doesn’t make them right either."

A bit klutzy. Perhaps, to be consistent, those last two sentences should have read "Lots of people believe in man-made climate change. It doesn’t make them right either." x = 0

"Climategate could also make scientists more cautious in their day-to-day work and their communications. That would be a big blow since science is a necessarily adversarial process that thrives on blunt debate. "

Well, I'm glad that Mr Pearce didn't have the cheek to say 'open debate'.

Who are the flat-earthers, I wonder ?

For the record, I believe in AGW, that wherever possible energy should be generated from renewable resources, that glaciers are retreating, that polar bears are jumping between smaller and small ice-floes, that it's all one world and that ice bears can melt even in Copenhagen. But with friends like these ......

Joe

If the emails had been stolen from an oil company, and showed conspiracy to discredit AGW researchers, you would have been crowing about the final nail in the coffin of climate denial.

But because you personally support the theory of AGW, you clutch at any excuse to avoid having to face your own doubts.

Please grow up. Face your doubts. And find out what else is rotten in the world of climate research.

Even if AGW is a real problem, we shall never believe anything the IPCC or CRU says again, unless we are satisfied the rot has been excised.

All we can really learn from this is "At least we have learned how not to conduct a climate change investigation."

From now on trust I had for Scientists will be seriously compromised .

Is it really true that Al Gore has made a fortune promoting Climate Change ? He had a Climate Change Business ? He Charged Public Radio and Television to Interview him ? Why did I think he was on Crusade for Mankind and all other in the World .

I was conned !

And the Scientists , He who pays gets the Science he wants !