Climate researchers have to get over the new realities of modern Internet-based communications (Climategate's Guerrilla Warriors - Focus, Feb. 20). The public at large has not followed peer-reviewed literature; most people don't care or understand what it means or entails. The East Anglia e-mail debacle certainly has not helped the cause: They are perceptually legitimizing the critics by hitting back hard with defensive tactics, name-calling etc.
Perhaps they should take a page from medicine. We, too, have peer-reviewed literature that we base our practices on. The Internet, however, has made the days of covered wagons selling snake oil cure-alls seem tame compared to the nonsense disseminated as fact. We've had to deal with patients armed with reams of such nonsense for years. Today, people more readily believe what they read for themselves than what they are told by experts. Conspiracy theory thrives, leading to an inherent distrust of scientists.
Instead of shunning their critics, these climate scientists should be happy to have the debate joined by bloggers. If the evidence is truly balanced one way or the other, it will survive controversy and debate from all sides. Engaging the public in a meaningful discourse will allay the fear and distrust so many have surrounding the issue.