I died when I saw it was from Bill Corbett!

Yeah rob won this one.

"Do ronnie corbett!"

1) Corbett is a truther.
2) Ball is a strong opponent of AGW theory.
3) Their list of "objective" sources are all websites of AGW opponents.
These facts alone make this highly suspect.

I find the whole thing ridiculous. If I cherry picked through the last ten years of your business e-mails I could find a subset with make you look like a scoundrel.

If these e-mails are so damning, then it should be trivial to show, with science, based on the information the e-mails contain, what is wrong with the papers that the CRU has published. But nobody appears to be able to do this.

So far all I have heard is that they "colluded" to withdraw support from journals publishing things they think are shite, and that they kept some information confidential. These are not suspicious behaviors, these are standard practice, and they should be. Scientists need to police journals by not publishing in those with poor practices. Scientists need to protect their data, and the data of others, so that they don't get scooped on publication.

Much broad climate data is public information, reported in many ways, backed up on paper and harddrives all over the world. If CRU is just fudging the "master data" it should be trivial to show that their dataset does not match the dataset as originally measured. Not claiming or talking about evidence for this suggests strongly that they have no such evidence, and wish to influence science, not through scientific evidence, but through public opinion, and just like creationists, that tactic alone makes their position suspect.