Advocates of Intelligent Design have become accustomed to critics who tout themselves as defenders of science; self-appointed protectors of children from the dangerous idea that the universe, and life on earth yield clues indicating design and intent. So if evidence exists indicating a real threat to science there is an expectation that this crowd stands ready to condemn those threatening to undermine public confidence in science.
Global Warming Bombshell is one of many articles describing an ominous story. The dust has not yet settled but if the accounts of hacked information are true then we probably are seeing a major impact on socio-political issues in the making. From the link:
The emails I've reviewed so far do not suggest that these scientists are perpetrating a knowing and deliberate hoax. On the contrary, they are true believers. I don't doubt that they are sincerely convinced–in fact, fanatically so–that human activity is warming the earth. But the emails are disturbing nonetheless. What they reveal, more than anything, is a bunker mentality. These pro-global warming scientists see themselves as under siege, and they view AGW skeptics as bitter enemies. They are often mean-spirited; the web site American Thinker is referred to as "American Stinker;" at one point an emailer exults in the death of a global warming skeptic; another one suggests that the Ph.D. of a prominent skeptic should be revoked because of an error he made decades ago in his dissertation; another says that he is tempted to "beat the crap out of" the same scientist. The emails show beyond any reasonable doubt that these individuals are engaged in politics, not science.
They also suggest that pro-global warming scientists fudge data to get the results they are looking for. Just over a month ago, on September 28, 2009, Tom Wigley wrote to Phil Jones of the Hadley Centre about his efforts to get the right-sized "blip" in temperatures of the 1940s:
Read the entire article at the link. What fudging does is destroy credibility. Calls for policy changes on a global scale depend ultimately on the credibility of data arguing for climate change. It also depends on the credibility of those supplying data about both the problem and the plausibility of suggested remedial measures. Arrogance and ideological blindness engender deception. Deception can derail even sound policies.