The significance of the CRU emails
The whole of the anthropogenic climate change reporting and response is co-ordinated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which produces substantial reports every few years on the current state of the science and economics.
The last of these reports—Assessment Report 4 (AR4, as it is referred to throughout the emails)—was released in 2007.
The scientific parts of the IPCC's reports have been based heavily on the research and reconstructions produced by The Club—particularly on the temperature reconstructions of Michael Mann and Keith Briffa. These reconstructions (usually involving a hockey stick graph) have been constantly attacked—and usually destroyed—by sceptics such as Steve McIntyre.
What these emails show is that members of The Club have presented, as fact, data which privately they have acknowledged to be, at best, flawed.
Further, many members of The Club are editors of the reports submitted to the IPCC, and the emails show that they have deliberately cherry-picked those that agree with their position—and conspired to discredit or reject those that do not agree with their political position.
The Club has also conspired to suborne journals, and to oust editors of other journals who are perceived as being unsympathetic to their cause. And they have been successful.
The emails show that, whilst claiming that sceptics' papers are not peer-reviewed, The Club have actively and deliberately used blackmail and smears to prevent such peer-review or, when review is unavoidable, to have conspired to skew the review process to discredit their opponents.
All of these actions render the scientific reports produced by the IPCC extremely suspect. At best.
And they most certainly destroy the concept of the "scientific consensus".
None of these emails disprove anthropogenic climate change: but they do shatter the idea that there is no dissent and, crucially, they absolutely annihilate the idea that scientists are impartial and uncorrupt.
And these emails most certainly explode the proposition that we should reorder the world economy because of an impending climate disaster.
Every single member of The Club needs to be removed from any post of responsibility; they need to be sacked from their jobs, ejected from the IPCC working groups, their data re-examined by independent assessors and their papers expunged from the IPCC reports—AR5 is due out quite soon and any inclusion of The Club's research—or reconstructions or models based on their research (as most of them are)—will lead to it being stillborn.
And then—maybe—we can make a proper, honest assessment of what is happening in climate science: until then, it is all just bunk.