If you've been living in a cave — or make the mistake of mistaking mainstream media sources as a reliable way of understanding the world — and care about what's true anyway — you should really take a look at some of the blog coverage regarding recently-exposed "Global Warming" advocate e-mails.

Bishop Hill blog has a nice summary, which reveals global-advocates trying to hide data, eliminate inconvenient aspects of history (such as the Medieval Warm Period), attempting to defame and libel anyone who was detecting problems with their work, manipulate the mainstream media (not hard, I'd expect), delete information information to avoid transparency laws, secretly work with extremist groups like Greenpeace, etc.

Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is true or not doesn't matter. Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too.

Here's a nice one, showing their (dis)interesting in doing real science:

Santer says he will no longer publish in Royal Met Soc journals if they enforce intermediate data being made available. Jones has complained to head of Royal Met Soc about new editor of Weather [why?data?] and has threatened to resign from RMS

Can't have other scientists looking at the "intermediate data", can we? That would be too much like, um.... science, wouldn't it?

The most galling aspect of this whole story, is, of course, that this is the crew who screams about a "war on science". There has, of course, been a war on science. And these "scientists" have been on the front lines regarding recent assaults on honesty, open debate, reliable data, etc.