Hacked emails from an English Climate-research Centre were released this week. They've released an outpouring of righteous and sometimes hysterical indignation from the "true believers" on the web, and an equally righteous trumpetting from those who question the correctness of the true believers' science, and see them as evidence of underhand behaviour.
"Hacking is in itself disquieting, but the content and focus of the leaked emails is also disquieting. We read a sample in the Physics Department last week, and eyebrows were raised. I have been a publishing Physicist for over 40 years, and I never wrote emails like this, and my colleagues, after some thought, agreed that they hadn't either. We sound off to each other about incompetent editors and referees who reject our papers, often in robust language, but never question the right of others to reject our data or conclusions, describe dissenting colleagues disparagingly, nor hide behind freedom of information acts to release our data or modelling programs - which all seem to be present or implied in what we read.
I find it interesting and revealing that the majority of letters to the editor in the last few issues of the authoritative journal "Physics Today" reveal a robust, and ongoing technical debate about the science of climate change and its predictions, which are far from being as clear-cut as most of you probably believe."
Gab of the day
47 minutes ago