In C P Snow's 1960 book "Science and Government," he raises concerns about the impact on democracy when some of society's most crucial decisions are made *in secret*, based on scientific criteria which most people cannot understand. (He used as his examples the secret British debate about air defense technology, in the years just before WWII, and the later debate about the efficacy of bombing population centers)

I think Snow overestimated the extent to which secrecy is vital in matters of military technology policy--it is entirely appropriate, for example, for missile defense to be publicly debated, even if there are certain technical aspects which must remain secret. But he did not foresee the extent to which secrecy would prevail in an area like climate studies, in which the normal military rationale for secrecy does not even apply.

I think part of the justification for the huge increase in educational spending over the last several decades has been the argument that we are living in a technological society, and people need to understand science to properly fulfill their duty as citizens. And I think we can conclude that this objective has not even approximately been met...how many CongressCreatures have even the vaguest concept of what by meant by "mathematical modeling," and what factors might influence when it can be trusted and when it cannot?

I wonder what it must feel like to be able to wield power through deceit. People such as these -- smug in their advanced education -- must know they will eventually be found out, but -- Oh! -- what a ride till then! To be fair (We must always be fair...), they don't rise to the level of marque totalitarians, but they come closer than many think. Hubris, righteousness, arrogance, they stink with the rot of lies, scuttling about when the light finally breaks.

These people want us to restructure the entire global economy..and even the entire global political system..based on the results of their mathematical models, but many of them seem reluctant to engage in serious discussion of those models and their trustworthiness or lack of same.

Boeing has unfortunately had more problems with the composite construction of the 777 Dreamliner. From WSJ:
**
Boeing has only computer models to predict how (these composite materials)) will react to the stresses of flight, especially with long-term use under the varied conditions and temperatures airplanes routinely encounter.

"Delamination is a very, very challenging problem to model analytically," says Andy Hansen, professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Wyoming and an expert in composite analysis. "If you're talking about building an airplane you want to fly for 30 years, it's an issue."
**
If it's that difficult to model the performance of these materials over 30 years...when the people doing the modeling have every incentive to get it right and also have the ability to conduct actual *experiments* on the materials in question...how much more difficult must it be to model the behavior of the earth's climate, with its multiplicity of causal factors and feedback loops, over the extended future? Even if the people doing the work were acting in total good faith, which is increasingly open to question?

"Hubris, righteousness and arrogance..." That would be an improvement over what I think the driving factor is. The CRU pocketed over $53 million to come up evidence of AGW. Not to see if it exists, but to come up evidence that it does. Protecting their money stream is more than enough reason to explain everything the emails contain. That isn't to say they aren't also full of hubris, righteousness and arrogance. They are.

Wot, no link to the response by RealClimate?

Mike, I have read the RealClimate post at the link you offered. I remain unconvinced.

I believe the best post on this matter so far is Global WarmingGate: What Does it Mean? by Charles Johnson. In it, makes the case that — assuming the emails are legit — there are 3 scandals layered on one another:

The emails suggest the authors co-operated covertly to ensure that only papers favorable to CO2-forced AGW were published, and that editors and journals publishing contrary papers were punished. They also attempted to “discipline” scientists and journalists who published skeptical information.

The emails suggest that the authors manipulated and “massaged” the data to strengthen the case in favor of unprecedented CO2-forced AGW, and to suppress their own data if it called AGW into question.

The emails suggest that the authors co-operated (perhaps the word is “conspired”) to prevent data from being made available to other researchers through either data archiving requests or through the Freedom of Information Acts of both the U.S. and the UK.

Johnson provides enough links to make a credible case (again assuming the files are legit).

The London Times picks this up:

Astonishingly, what appears, at least at first blush, to have emerged is that (a) the scientists have been manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend; (b) they have consistently refused outsiders access to the raw data; (c) the scientists have been trying to avoid freedom of information requests; and (d) they have been discussing ways to prevent papers by dissenting scientists being published in learned journals.

There may be a perfectly innocent explanation. But what is clear is that the integrity of the scientific evidence on which not merely the British Government, but other countries, too, through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, claim to base far-reaching and hugely expensive policy decisions, has been called into question. And the reputation of British science has been seriously tarnished. A high-level independent inquiry must be set up without delay.

"Johnson provides enough links to make a credible case."

Huh? This is a question of science, not of who assembles the largest dossier of pseudo-evidence. I don't know enough about global warning to judge the details of this case, but I think that it's very, very premature to write an obituary for anthropomorphic global warming.