Just time for a quick hit: I’ve discussed Climategate before (for instance: here and here). Much of the media machinery has rolled out to explain how the revelations present in the East Anglia e-mails don’t really change anything, but that simply isn’t true. Regardless of whether one believes that global warming is man-caused, not man-caused, or nonexistant, one would have to agree that the e-mails are a disheartening look at how unscientific the practice of science can be. If referred journals are the “Bibles” of the science community, then the Climategate e-mails paint a picture of the science community — climate science, in particular — akin to how Dan Brown paints the Catholic Church.
I only bring this up again because Patrick J. Michaels in today’s WSJ explains this so much better and more concisely than I have. (Go figure.) And as one of the victims in all of this, he has regrettable cause to have intimate knowledge. I link to his article here for those so interested: “How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus.”