Regarding the hacking of the Climate Research Unit (CRU)'s webmail server: Before I begin, let me make the obligatory observation that hacking into someone's computer system is morally wrong. I thought that goes without saying, but apparently not (since everyone is going out of his way to say it). If this were about cybersex between the CRU guys and their mistresses, I certainly wouldn't be reposting the emails.

But this is about people who are providing the justification for governments around the world to take over their energy sectors (and more). CRU is the single most important storekeeper of global temperature data, and they have refused to disclose their original numbers (eventually saying they no longer have them). So when outside "skeptics" want to double check the techniques used to generate the graphs that the IPCC points to and says, "See? We need to regulate CO2," they can't reproduce CRU's techniques. We just have to take CRU's word for it that they handled the data properly.

That's why these emails (if legit) are so shocking.

OK one of EPJ's readers sent Wenzel this article, which contains a few more jaw droppers (emphasis added either by me or by the other site):

From Michael E. Mann (witholding of information / data):

Dear Phil and Gabi,
I’ve attached a cleaned-up and commented version of the matlab code that I wrote for doing the Mann and Jones (2003) composites. I did this knowing that Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future, so best to clean up the code and provide to some of my close colleagues in case they want to test it, etc. Please feel free to use this code for your own internal purposes, but don’t pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people.

From Nick McKay (modifying data):

The Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in the way that McIntyre said. I took a look at the original reference – the temperature proxy we looked at is x-ray density, which the author interprets to be inversely related to temperature. We had higher values as warmer in the reconstruction, so it looks to me like we got it wrong, unless we decided to reinterpret the record which I don’t remember. Darrell, does this sound right to you?

...

From Kevin Trenberth (failure of computer models):

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

From Michael Mann (truth doesn't matter):

Perhaps we'll do a simple update to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new page--Gavin t? As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa '06 sensitivity test) in our original post! As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.

From Phil Jones (witholding of data):

The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here! ... The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate! Cheers Phil

PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !

From Michael E. Mann (using a website to control the message, hide dissent):

Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC [RealClimate.org - A supposed neutral climate change website] Rein any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include.

From Phil Jones (witholding of data):

If FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them.

Those of you who thought these were just "cherry picked" and "out of context" emails that don't cast any suspicion at all on the noble scientists seeking to save the earth... are you still so sure? Is this what you pictured the careful scientists doing, versus the lying distorting deniers?