Follow the money
You need to understand how research works and how it is funded to get an idea of where things have gone wrong.

Having worked in a research led university for almost 20 years, I can see where the CRU has failed.

99% of all research is dependant on someone paying for it to be done, and it is uncommon for the payee or sponsor to be unbiased (look at tobacco company sponsored research into smoking/cancer links in the 50's for a perfect example). Therefore it is normally in the interest of the researcher to obtain results that the sponsor will like. This ensures a steady flow of money to the researcher and his team.

Unfortunately for us all, the main sponsors of research into AGW are national governments, who are quite open about their blatent bias due to their eagerness to use AGW as a platform to raise a very large amount of money for their coffers in "green" tax.

This has given the CRU what they considered to be a green light to do whatever it takes to provide the figures their sponsor (HM Govt) desire.

As scientists, the CRU staff have let themselves and the entire research commuinity down rather badly and they should resign. I am suprised they are still hanging on.

As to whether AGW is a proven fact?, that is now totally up in the air again. The CRU have effectively discredited the existing evidence for it.

Now that the CRU evidence is discredited, the balance of proof swings in favour of the sceptics at this moment in time. It is no good screeching "the evidence is there" and "Its definately happening" without any actual evidence. As someone quite correctly pointed out above, do not believe what is in the newspapers or on the news. Do your own research.
( RadG Drinking Mojitos in the sun, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 8:40, 3 replies, latest was 16 years ago)

That's correct
I'm still all for reducing the waste, but don't like people lying to me.
(Aberracion Life's getting very complicated, but a lot of fun., Wed 2 Dec 2009, 8:47, Reply)

As if our government listens to scientific advice...
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 8:50, Reply)

They listen
If that means collect money on taxes.
(Aberracion Life's getting very complicated, but a lot of fun., Wed 2 Dec 2009, 9:08, Reply)

This is idiocy.
Tell us what your job in a research-led university has been. I'm guessing it wasn't academic.

Why would governments treat tax-raising as an end in itself? It's not as if HMRC officers get paid by commission. Remove that plank, and your whole batshit case collapses.

What the "leaks" show is that academics can be bitchy and backbiting. Woo hoo. That's actually a guarantor of good science: if you're looking for some way to show that other people are wrong, it forces them to tighten their arguments.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 10:39, Reply)

He also seems to be completely oblivious to the point
that most climate research in this country is funded by bodies like the Natural Environment Research Council, that is, scientific funding councils who don't have a huge hidden agenda and don't really stand to benefit either way from whatever results are gleaned from studies of anthropogenic climate change.

I smell a goat.
(LongJohnBaldry, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 10:47, Reply)

I'd been thinking something similar about Goats.
The lack of imagination among deniers - "They must be in it for the money" - is staggering. Besides: if the scientific community as a whole was smart enough to manage a hoax like this for money, they'd be smart enough to make a lot more money for a lot less work some other way...
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:00, Reply)

Well, quite.
It does make them look rather desperate when they have to start yelling and pointing at the one-study-in-fifty that suggested the temperatures might drop, or indeed the mudslinging we've had over an illegally-obtained, personal email...I think in terms of tactics, it almost puts them on a par with homeopaths.
(LongJohnBaldry, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:08, Reply)

umm
The parent body of the N.E.R.C. is the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, a ministerial department of the Government.

Its legal status is that it is a government body.

Its funding is from the the government.

It is most certainly not an independant organisation.

Edit/ and I am most certainly NOT a denier, sceptic or such. I am simply rather dissapointed that some very poor practice by the CRU has muddied the waters greatly, handing the stage to the extremists of both sides of the debate to hang out their dirty washing in public, leaving the man on the street more confused than ever.
( RadG Drinking Mojitos in the sun, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 13:15, Reply)