Where to start? To my mind the most significant insights from the leaked emails is the level of politicisation of science and the extent to which Feyerabend was right about the process of science.
Unanimity of opinion may be fitting for a church, for the frightened or greedy victims of some (ancient, or modern) myth, or for the weak and willing followers of some tyrant. Variety of opinion is necessary for objective knowledge. And a method that encourages variety is also the only method that is comparable with a humanitarian outlook.
That leading scientists should feel that they need to positively suppress conflicting views is pretty sad. The grown-up way to proceed is through complete transparency: here’s our data and analysis, now put it through a peer-reviewed process, please.
Junk Charts dissects the “trick” email which has created a large part of the storm: they are joining two series together to show longer-term trends, rather than focusing on a short series. More strongly, they are joining unreliable tree-ring data from pre-1961 with more accurate instrumental readings.Â I’m not sure this is necessarily wrong?