The Parsing Continues...

.....and likely will for a long time to come, but here's another early analysis of several of the "mushroom cloud" email exchanges, with lots of links to the actual emails that illustrate the condemnable behavior:

Global WarmingGate: What Does It Mean?

Moneyshots (italics and bullets in the original):

"The hackers released about 172 megabytes of data, and we can be sure examining it closely will take some time. But after a few days, certain things are beginning to become clear.

• The data appears to be largely, perhaps entirely, authentic.
• The emails are incendiary.
• The implications shake the scientific basis for AGW, and the scientific reputations of some of AGW’s major proponents, to their roots"
  

They appear to reveal not one, not two, but three real scandals, of increasing importance.

• The emails suggest the authors co-operated covertly to ensure that only papers favorable to CO₂-forced AGW were published, and that editors and journals publishing contrary papers were punished. They also attempted to “discipline” scientists and journalists who published skeptical information."

[---]

• The emails suggest that the authors manipulated and “massaged” the data to strengthen the case in favor of unprecedented CO₂-forced AGW, and to suppress their own data if it called AGW into question.

• The emails suggest that the authors co-operated (perhaps the word is “conspired”) to prevent data from being made available to other researchers through either data archiving requests or through the Freedom of Information Acts of both the U.S. and the UK.

What makes this interesting is that the CRU, in later years, announced that they had “inadvertently deleted” their raw data when they responded to an FOIA request from … McIntyre."

[---]

But, at least on this first look, it appears that the three scandals are:

• First, a real attempt by a small group of scientists to subvert the peer-review process and suppress dissenting voices.... This is at best massively unethical.
• Second, a willingness to manipulate the data to make a political case. This is certainly misconduct and possibly scientific fraud. This, if it proves true, should make these scientists subject to strong disciplinary action, even termination of their tenured positions.
• Third, what gives every appearance of an actual conspiracy to prevent data from being released as required by the Freedom of Information Acts in the US and UK. If this is proven true, that is a federal crime.

Wow! Wow! and Wow!!