Andrew Revkin, who writes the Dot Earth blog for the New York Times, and who kindly links to my Animal Ethics blog, discusses the case of the hacked computer files. Some of the "scientists" quoted in the story claim that all the hacked e-mail messages show is that "scientists are human beings." It shows far more than that. It shows that some scientists are willing to compromise their science for the sake of progressive political goals. In other words, it shows that they are progressives first and scientists second. It also shows that some scientists are thugs. Their aim is to destroy the reputations of those who don't share their political aims. (I have firsthand experience with this, as many of you know. I have been smeared by people, including professors at prominent universities, simply because they dislike my conservatism.) If scientists knew what was good for them, they would keep Keith's Law in mind: Authoritativeness is inversely proportional to partisanship.
Addendum: Nobody is claiming that because scientists tried to hide inconvenient data, the globe is not warming. The claim is that because scientists tried to hide inconvenient data, they cannot be trusted to inform the public about whether global warming is occurring. Do you see the difference? You can't appeal to authority when there are doubts about whether the alleged authorities are authorities.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 