“At the time when you rejected the hockey stick based on not seeing the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age, were you of the impression that these were known to be established global trends versus regional ones? Did you research that distinction before concluding that the science was wrong, or afterwards?
Do you consider your graph analysis to be of publishable quality? Are you fairly confident that it would not be shown to be in error if you submitted it?
Are you really asserting that the released e-mails provided a sufficient explanation for you? If so, it’s possible that your initial “skepticism” jumped the rails into conspiracy dynamics at that point and that your further investigations were tainted by confirmation bias (as a hypothesis to consider, not asserted as a fact).
Because by today you would need to explain how other groups with other data have fairly well reproduced Mann’s “hockey stick”, and the easiest way is to cope with that new evidence is to assume a nearly seamless global conspiracy to cook the data. The cool thing about that approach is that it can explain anything, and needs no ongoing evidence, mechanism, reality checking. Conspiracies allow unbounded extrapolation from limited data points – “gee, X appears to have happened in one place, so I need no further evidence to assume that Y and Z and W are all happening as well, where I get to specify any Y, Z and W needed to fill in the gaps of my predetermined theory”. It all makes sense now! All the pieces not only fit together, they fit together perfectly!
Actually critiquing the various published articles on proxy based climate reconstructions with analysis worthy of publication would be a whole lot more work, when “the climategate emails can explain away anything and everything which is inconvenient to my current beliefs”.
Oh, here’s another handy application. If your graph of “all the data” which fell between the “alarmists” and the Russians isn’t accepted for peer review, it must be because of climategate. It couldn’t be because you failed to read and take into account the other papers which analyze heat island effects in some detail.
Really, if climategate explained it all for you, then you are set for life and need never again worry about having your favored theories challenged by inconvenient contrary evidence.
I’m not saying that you will use climategate to extrapolate way beyond the evidence, only that it’s going to be a temptation, if “being right” in an argument (or at least in your own mind) is of high importance to you.
Politics has indeed invaded science. Think you that it’s on but one side?
By the way, I do agree that there has been a lack of full transparency in climate science that needs to be addressed. Luckily we are not alone in that, and many climate scientists agree (even those supporting AGW). So that condition seems to be gradually improving – more raw data and more software are being released, which is good for all of us. So far, no smoking guns – each release has been pored over by opponents of AGW seeking major flaws they have assured us must exist, only to fall silent without apology when they fail to find them. I hope that eventually all relevant data and software will be released for open review when results are published; where there really is shoddy science or deception it needs to be fixed, period – whether the author supports or opposes AGW or takes no position. But I predict that AGW opponents will continue to be highly disappointed and that the new openness will strengthen AGW rather than torpedo it. Luckily there’s still the seamless global scientific conspiracy to explain it all, for those whose conclusions are pre-determined.”