Based on the leaked CRU documents, does it look like the scientists there have sufficient safeguards?

What we have here is collusion at the highest levels. The very scientists in charge of these research facillities are on the take. It's like asking if there are sufficient safeguards against corruption in your local police force when the Chief of Police and local judge are corrupt. To make matters worse, federal governments went along because they want control of the entire energy sector. They needed a crisis like AGW to pull this off.

Confirmation bias, yes. They cherry picked the data to support their conclusion, and even fudged it when necessary. They also used their positions as peer reviewers of scientific journals to ensure papers contrary to AGW theory would never be published.

Beren,

Unfortunately you are wrong again. It is not your fault, just what the mass media has done to the general public.

Steve McIntyre might be said to have bias, but unlike these CRU's, he has put all of the data out for the world to see. You can't get rid off all bias as humans. That is why you allow all of your data to be scrutinized by all.

The detestable portion of the email that came out was that the scientific leadership of the CRU had made it perfectly clear that if your findings went against GW, you would not publish and if you did, they would trash your career. In other words, these people of influence, like Micheal Mann, made sure that the only thing that was allowed to be published were AGW findings. If you will note, it got so bad that some climate researchers who had found AGW to be untrue, had to publish on the internet. They let the entire world see their findings, and the only argument against them was that they weren't "peer-reviewed". This is a fallacy. They were peer-reviewed. Their material was out for everyone to see. Their peers could and did take a crack at finding flaws in their research.

Publication is truly meaningless. True science can only be done if it is transparent and can be independently validated by other scientists.

Pegminer,

You should be ashamed of yourself. The hackers did nothing more than place the data that should already be out there for people to see (that is if these scientists worked under scientific principles). The hackers did not modify anything, nor show any political bias and they are heroes for risking jail to place this FOI protected information out. These emails show beyond any doubt that their science has been corrupted by their politics. If the scientists were not so politically biased, they would not care that other could see the models they used, nor the emails that have gone around.

Bucket, You may have a point if Mcintyre had the ability to stop other scientists publications. He did not, nor could he ruin the careers of scientists if they disagreed. Sure he has bias and you might find it in his emails, but I will once again remind you that I have 1000 emails in my inbox, and while some contain client-priviledged information, none would cause me nor my company embarrassment.

This whole thing is the poster child for confirmation bias. The amazing thing about the leaked documents upheaval is that the accusation of confirmation bias has been around for years with many solid examples. And now these emails don't do a thing to contradict that and actually support it (the accusation).

This is a black eye on science.

"Steve McIntyre might be said to have bias, but unlike these CRU's, he has put all of the data out for the world to see."

When McIntyre releases all of his personal emails for public viewing, perhaps you'll have a point.

They don't have sufficient safeguards from politically motivated hackers, that's for sure.

Both sides have bias.