The fallout from the "non-scandal" (as the American MSM likes to call it ) of the CRU/East Anglia unauthorized disclosure continues to gain steam.  Phil Jones, the leader of the unit prior to the disclosure, has resigned as its head.  Penn State has decided to stage a mock inquiry into the actions of Michael Mann (purposefully ignoring the pertinent questions), and even Gavin Schmidt of NASA has come under fire for essentially bilking the government for private time spent on the propaganda wing of the scandal - realclimate.,org. 

Many questions continue, and will continue, to swirl around the controversy for one primary reason.  The lack of openness in the climate debate from the Anthropogenic Global Warming group.  But the dust is starting to settle on the matter as real scientists now weigh in on the matter.

And like real scientists, they are not tackling the "science" of the matter, as their expertise is often in other areas, but on the behavior of the so called scientists themselves.  Surprisingly (or not so), they mince few words in condemning the actions of not only the East Anglia group, but of all people that have attempted to thwart the study and inquiry into Global Climate Change.

The United Kingdom (UK) Parliament has instigated an investigation into the disclosed emails and what they say about the science of AGW.  So far, 4 submissions have brought steaming condemnation and/or further evidence of the efforts of the AGW crowd to surpress the science.  While many on the AGW side will undoubtably question the motives of the 4 submissions, as well as the funding, the reality is these are unimpeachable sources for the testimony they give.

And the testimony is damning.  No less than Phil Jones, in a recent interview, maintained that hiding data was "standard Practice".  He has been joined by Michal Mann, in an interview with Point of Inquiry, maintaining the same stance, while at the same time saying they had released all of the data and program code (Note:  The release of the data was forced by a submission of Mann to Science, which requires all supporting data to be released.  He did not release it willingly as he indicates).  And not to be outdone, Jim Bouldin of UC Davis maintains on RealClimate.org in response to the question of releasing the data that:

Second, there is an enormous amount of climate data available freely via the web. See the "Data Sources" tab on the top of the main page. Third, you are wrong on "the worst that can happen"--it can be used by those without the proper training and understanding of the issues, whose goal is to find fault and defame rather than improve understanding, as McIntyre is an outstanding example of. This is, combined with his demanding attitude and tactics, are why he engenders animosity

piling on is Gavin Schmidt, whose salary is paid by NASA, when asked why not comply with FOI (i.e. be open with the data), he chimes in with:

Because, as he has explained frequently, that in order to get the maximum amount of data available they gave assurances and signed memoranda with many National weather services not to distribute raw data that the NWS's would rather sell. If you want the free stuff, you can just look at the GHCN records (which is the basis for the GISTEMP product - all of which is online and available for anyone to look at)

Which of course is a lie, but then why be honest when you are already shown to be crooked?

I am sure there are others in the crowd that maintain the same secretive nature for their data.  And for good reason, from their viewpoint.  Since every time they release the data, real scientists find fault with it. 

But real scientists also find fault with their behavior.  In one of the first submissions to the UK Parliament Inquiry, the Institute of Physics states unequivocally:

The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself - most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change.

and even go so far as to question the results based upon the behavior:

The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.

But most telling is their statement of collusion and exclusion:

The e-mails illustrate the possibility of networks of like-minded researchers effectively excluding newcomers.

The IOP was not the only submission as the Royal Society of Chemist also submitted a damning paper to the Inquiry Board. The RSoC points out even that Climate Science is not a science onto itself, but multi-disciplinary:

Sharing information is especially important in multi-disciplinary research, where progress is very much dependent on willing and effective communication between different speciality areas

Getting to the heart of the matter, these scientist then state:

The true nature of science dictates that research is transparent and robust enough to survive scrutiny. A lack of willingness to disseminate scientific information may infer that the scientific results or methods used are not robust enough to face scrutiny, even if this conjecture is not well-founded.

And more so, in direct contradiction to Bouldin and Schmidt:

It is also imperative that scientific information is made available to the wider community for scrutiny: the validity and essence of research relies upon its ability to stand up to review.

And of course in direct contradiction to the name callers and politicians (those who state the science is settled):

In fact, advances in science frequently occur when the prevailing view is challenged by informed scepticism, this is fundamental to the scientific method and should be encouraged, even if controversial.

These are but a couple of the organizations that have submitted damning data to the Inquiry.  Some are individuals telling of instances where the AGW group threatened them if they released data and/or published papers.  Not all of the names spring to mind as belonging to the Skeptic camp, as Dr. Benny Peiser shows both in the released emails, and ones not released of the proof that they were out to distort, intimidate, and suppress views and papers they did not agree with or that called attention to their "Factual Errors" or even "fraud Allegations".  All Dr. Peiser was doing was publishing a paper that called into question the Chinese data used by Dr. Wei-Chyung Wang in 2 of his papers.

Of course the more renowned skeptic, Steve McIntyre, also documents, for the inquiry, the withholding of data concerning the Polar Ural Tress.  In the submission, McIntyre documents withholding of data:

Jones: We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.

And the suppression of peer review:

If published as is, this paper could really do some damage. It is also an ugly paper to review because it is rather mathematical, with a lot of Box-Jenkins stuff in it. It won't be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically

Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised

I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review - Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting

I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

The submissions continue and I am sure there will be more.  But they clearly demonstrate that while Al Gore and politicians of all stripes avow the 'science is settled", they are the only ones to believe that.  For it took unscientific practices, criminal refusal to conform to established laws, and "networks of like-minded researchers effectively excluding newcomers" to get the "concensus" that they are so fond of yelling about.  Not real science or scientific work. 

A conspiracy?  Not on the scale that some would try to laugh at.  But then it did not take a lot of people to do what the gang at East Anglia along with Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, Jim Bouldin and the handful of others did.  It did take collusion, and that, as we see, is evident and damning of the people involved with the science, if not the science itself.