However, it can be damn entertaining.

Like, for example, when dishonest researchers get to stand down.

The ongoing fun over leaked emails at one of the foremost climate change talking shops is brilliant – some of the blatant lying and trickery that have long been obvious are now being seen by even such publications as the Economist, who are somewhat less greenish/mentalist this week than last.

And seeing Prof Jones get the comeuppance for his outright failure to adhere to any scientific standard is gratifying. It’s what I’ve often said: if the data really supported the theories of man-made climate change, then the raw data would be out there for all to see and for anyone with a calculator to crunch it.

Restricting such data can be legitimate for only two real reasons in this case, I think. Either because the input doesn’t corroborate the output (which I think is the case), or there is a commercial advantage to be protected. Actually, that might be the case as well – if the CRU is shown to be an unreliable source of information, then in a fair world its funding would be cut. And it would wither. And it would be bad for me to want that, but at the same time I wouldn’t exactly cry myself to sleep over it…