An e-mail today on the Russell report from John Christy, a respected climate scientist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, who questions humanity's role in climate change:
Without an open interview with the most knowledgeable person (Steve McIntyre) on the most serious issue (paleoclimate data, 1.3.2), this cannot be considered an investigation with serious merit. McIntyre's information is public and auditable, and exposes clear problems with the IPCC process and IPCC results which were heavily influenced by the emailers of Climategate. He has been demonized by these "scientists" without the opportunity to officially respond. It is most ironic that McIntyre represents more of what climate science should be (openness, attention to detail, mathematical skill, financially disconnected, immediately acknowledging and correcting errors) than those well‑entrenched in the climate establishment (for whom this report bends over backwards to protect in my view.) McIntyre is the one for whom this panel should have reserved high praise.
What I've read comes across as, Well ... boys will be boys.
If our peer-review system were unbiased, we wouldn't need to worry about what these emails describe. Unfortunately, these emailers have considerable sway in the review process concerning climate observations, and that's the problem. It boils down to a simple question, "After reading these emails, would you trust these folks to provide an unbiased review of your work?"
On CRU former director Phil Jones's new position as director of research:
I think Phil will do well now, and I look forward to working with him.