Colby Cosh: "climate scientists “resent having to respond to skeptics.” Well, who the hell doesn’t? That’s like saying that prosecutors resent the threat of having unfairly acquired evidence excluded from the courtroom, or that ballplayers resent the danger of getting picked off first base. They can resent it all they like, but it’s there in the rules of the game, for good reasons. Q: What do you call a scientist who can’t accept criticism from “skeptics”? A: Anything you like, as long as it’s not “scientist”."
Sounds so damned reasonable doesn't it? Except for a small problem. The only people truly qualified to be "skeptical" of scientists, is other scientists. Laymen don't have the basic understanding (and even an advanced understanding of statistics doesn't qualify) to properly question an expert in their field. This is true of other fields of study as well, the various engineering disciplines, medicine, and even various trades. That is why the term "peer reviewed" is so important. This is the built-in self-check into the scientific method. Before any new findings are accepted as fact, they have to be reviewed.
Climate science is one such rigorous discipline. These e-mails show that process happening (whether formally discussed or informally discussed). If you wish to take a skeptical look at the current modelling of the climate, go to school and get studying. Until you know what you're talking about, sincerely, shut the hell up.
So "Norwich", the only reason "there is a problem" is because you want there to be a problem.