My reaction to what I have read of the East Anglia emails matches closely with what the editorial in Nature had to say about it:
“In the end, what the UEA e-mails really show is that scientists are human beings — and that unrelenting opposition to their work can goad them to the limits of tolerance, and tempt them to act in ways that undermine scientific values.”
A skeptic on a blog challenged me with: “Why is so much rationalization required [to defend these e-mails], if these guys are up to nothing but good? Where are the e-mails where they are sayins ‘ha! this really shows what we have been theorizing.”
Call me crazy, but somehow I don’t think the climate skeptic blogosphere has really been looking very hard for such emails. So lack of reports about such is hardly proof they don’t exist. Anyway, science doesn’t usually work the way the above skeptic suggests. At least not in a field like climate science where they study noisy, complex systems. There isn’t likely to ever be one piece of evidence that suddenly cinches the deal. It’s usually a slow buildup of little clues that eventually guide you toward confidence in a particular understanding.
So I did a little digging through the emails. Makes me feel a little dirty, but you’re just not likely to get a balanced picture by looking only at the links posted on skeptics’ blogs. I didn’t find any exuberant emails like Mr. Skeptic sought, but below is probably about as exuberant as you’re likely to see a real scientist get (if a scientist tells you he’s just ‘proved global warming’ — or disproved it — with a single study, nod reassuringly and slowly back away):
“Henry Pollack’s Borehole view of things (similar conclusions to the other recent papers) is about to appear in Science. Although each proxy and method does have it’s limitations and biases, the multiproxy view is compelling with regard to the patterns of temp change over the past several centuries.”
For a scientist, that’s probably downright giddy with glee. This next e-mail I found also offers some balance vs the stuff I usually see pulled from the archive. Particularly this sentence and what follows:
“I **ABSOLUTELY** AGREE THAT WE MUST AVOID ANY BIAS OR PERCEPTION OF BIAS. MY COMMENT ON “NAILING” WAS MADE TO MEAN THAT ININFORMED PEOPLE KEEPING COMING BACK TO THE MWP, AND DESCRIBING IT FOR WHAT I BELIEVE IT WASN’T.”
This looks to me like a good example of how what looks incriminating in one email is often just a case of sloppy use of language. It’s a lot easier to say “I want to nail the MWP” than it is to say “I want to analyze the data carefully to reveal the true nature of the MWP, which I believe is not what a lot of uninformed people say it is”. These are guys with a common understanding, slinging private emails back and forth, so they get a little sloppy because they know the other guy won’t crucify them for having a bias. Somehow I really doubt most skeptics carefully hedge their statements about climate science in private emails to each other, either.
Now you may argue that if they are true scientists they should be above that, and keep a perfectly open mind at all times, and not start with any preference for a particular outcome. Well, first I would find it extremely surprising if anyone could study climate science for 5-10 years and not end up with some leaning one way or the other. Unbiased does not mean sans belief. Second, apparently they do keep an open mind despite the bias. That’s why this guy goes on to say “OUR JOB IS TO MAKE IT CLEAR WHAT IT [the MWP] WAS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE DATA. IF THE DATA ARE NOT CLEAR, THEN WE HAVE TO BE NOT CLEAR.”
So yeh, this guy has a bit of a bias — he believes his hypothesis — but the important thing is he is aware he has a bias and that he needs to be careful that it does not interfere with his analysis of the data. That’s more than I can say for the majority of skeptic commentary I have read. I find much more of this admission of and self-awareness about potential bias in the “warmists” writings than in those of skeptics.
(BTW if anyone reading this knows of some good climate skeptic literature that does NOT fall into the trap of chronic uncritical bias I’d love to know about it. I’m looking for a book that does a really even-handed job of arguing the science without resorting to a lot of cherry picking of facts or politicization of the issue. I’m reading Singer’s 2007 Unstoppable Global Warming right now, and I don’t find it to score well by those criteria.)