2009 November archive at Being Frank

Archive for November, 2009

Nov

Interesting analysis on a sad saga

Categories: Being Frank...

In preparing to write my weekly post, I usually scour a number of sources around the world. I like to read a wide variety of sources so that I can try to inform myself of all the prevailing opinions of the day, rather than just one particular viewpoint.

It always disheartens me, however, when I search for “Catholic” and get results relating to sexual scandal. So, as you can imagine, I didn’t like too much of what was in the news feed yesterday when I was doing my research.

A report has been released detailing the results of investigation into the sexual abuse of minors by Catholic priests and employees in Ireland. This is not to be confused with the similar “Ryan report” which was looking at the government sector as well. No, this sorry report outlines the cover-ups of child abuse by Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland from the mid-70′s to the mid-90′s.

As with the reports from elsewhere in Europe and the U.S., these cases deserve categorical damnation. The abuse of susceptible people – of any age – by our priests (and anyone in positions of heightened trust) is always to be deplored, for it is amongst the gravest of evils in my opinion. And the, at best, misguided and, at worst, calculated moves by the prelates at the time to cover up and move people along is just disgusting. Period.

The last time I discussed this topic, I called out for answers: specifically, how can something like this happen (repeatedly) and how can we prevent it from happening in the future? While there wasn’t much by way of a response to these questions in most of the media coverage I read, there was some very interesting points of view provided in a Telegraph article, somewhat provocatively entitled “Let’s get it straight: Irish child abuse was perpetrated by the trendy, modern post-Vatican II Catholic Church“.

I’m not saying that Mr Warner is correct in all his accusations or theories, but I do wonder if we are analysing these abuses from every possible angle? Because, in my opinion, that’s what we need to be doing in order to find a solution to this. As one of the comments by “spuds” on Warner’s article puts it:

Pedophilia is NOT just a problem of the Catholic Clergy in ANY country, it is a problem that runs the broad scope of Human experience!

It runs in families, first and foremost as a crime of opportunity. What is a church parish but another form of family? As is the local athletic team, scout pack, school class, where pedophiles trawl for victims?

To blame the church practise or lack thereof, whether post or pre Vatican councils, is to miss the root of the problem.

Someone at some point willfully chose to ignore the damage mental physical and emotional to a child/children to satisfy a curiosity and set into motion sexual pedophilia.

From the little I have seen of various films made concerning pedophiles, they are in most cases victims themselves.

I in no way, believe that because someone is a victim, that pity prevent justice from being enacted, when a victim turns to victimising to reassert their control over their life.

Forgiveness in its truest form is meant to prevent victims from victimising as a method of coping with powerlessness.

Forgiveness releases the victim from the control of the victimiser, in his/her heart and mind! Forgiveness does not release the victimiser from justice, punishment and removal from society, regardless of whether the perpetrators, are priest, teacher, coach, doctor, psychiatrist, psychologist, uncle, aunty, brother, cousin, sister… get the point?

So given this is not a solely Catholic problem, are there any lessons to be learnt from other professions of trust where this apparently isn’t a problem? Or, more frighteningly, is it also still a problem prevalent throughout all of human society? In which case a) what do we do, and b) how do we make our Church the bastion of those who are different enough for this not to be a problem?

Nov

It’s as if we no longer believe the young are capable of virtue

By eyeWitness 9 Comments

Categories: Being Frank...

I found this letter to the editor from The Catholic Herald thought provoking, and it accords with my experience of what I was taught at a Catholic School – although I am sure some are very good of course. It is a little bit like we are scared to teach anything which is not secular culture or ‘real life’ (what is real life?) because we don’t believe young people are capable of understanding the message or it is too far away from what the majority do in New Zealand. I guess the only thing that really works is for teachers to believe and deeply understand themselves to impart that to students. People see through anything else. Especially a ‘required’ summary of what the Church teaches before getting onto ‘real life’.

20 November 2009

It’s as if we no longer believe the young are capable of virtue

From Fr John Cahill

SIR – Regarding the opinion expressed in your leading article (November 13), it does indeed appear that the Catholic Education Service for England and Wales has let us down, at least in so far as its representatives have failed to oppose more forcefully the ceding parental rights to civil government. These rights are embedded in the natural law and constantly defended by the Church. The right of parents to oversee and moderate their children’s education, especially in the sensitive area of sexuality, has been reaffirmed in recent years both by the Vatican Congregation for Education and the Pontifical Council for the Family.

The reality is that we have long since lost our way on many of the moral issues surrounding sex education. The approval of curricular material such as Marriage Care’s Foundations for a Good Life reveals the chasm that now exists between elements of our secularised educational establishment and the authentic mind of the Church. Much of this curricular material would surely fall under the censure of what Pope John Paul II wrote in Familiaris Consortio: “The Church is formally opposed to an often widespread form of imparting sex education disassociated from moral principles” (FC 37).

Where in any of the curricular material for Catholic secondary schools do we find a coherent and substantive defense of the natural moral law regarding contraception or homosexuality? Where is the pervasive ethos of chastity, that natural sensitivity and modesty so necessary when dealing with matters of sexuality, especially given the nature of (dare I mention it) Original Sin. It is, to say least, problematic to suppose that information about sex can ever be imparted in a manner which is merely neutral and objective.

It is not a knowledge of the mechanics of contraception that will enable young people to make appropriate decisions about sex; common sense and experience would suggest quite the opposite. All too often this approach is a powerful contributory factor in conditioning the minds of young people towards the acceptance of promiscuous lifestyles. No, the duty of Catholic educators is to reconnect young people’s understanding of sex to the mysteries of life and love.

Is a deep sense of reverence before the mystery of life beyond the youth of today? Are they incapable of aspiring to sexual relationships which express the total self-gift of the human person in full responsibility and freedom? Have we become so cynical as to believe that young people are no longer capable of virtue, or is it that we have unwittingly become adapted to a morality no longer rooted in reason and Faith but revised according to the political mood of the moment ?

Yours faithfully,

John Cahill
Holy Souls,
Scunthorpe, Lincolnshire

Source: http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/letters/index.shtml

Nov

On Islam and the Crusades

By On the Road 80 Comments

Categories: Being Frank...

I have often heard Christians and non-Christians alike talk about the Crusades as the hallmark of Christian imperialism, as an opportunity to condemn the Church for such an unbelievable atrocity. It is often a ‘high horse’ issue, the ‘one’ that everyone seems to know about and rattle off as if they are so learned about the real events back in the 11th century. Heck, I was one of those people up until a world famous in New Zealand faithful Catholic apologist, Dean Mischewski, opened my eyes a bit. Now, I would not claim to be any sort of expert on the issue today, but I at least have the confidence to speak up and try to dispel the misnomers that are all too often raddled off. On this note, it is rare to find articles that address the real issues of the day, so I was pleasantly surprised to find this article in the City Journal. Here are some of the more interesting excerpts:

- Christendom’s crimes were recorded by Christians themselves—a stark contrast to our politically correct climate, in which many, especially Muslims, are reluctant to criticize Islam.
- [A BBC documentary]failed to note that the Crusades were a reaction against over 300 years of jihad and persecution of Eastern Christians, during which Muslims destroyed hundreds of churches and converted many others into mosques, including the magnificent Byzantine church Hagia Sophia.
- A new generation of Western medieval scholars has tried to rectify misconceptions about the Crusades. Historian Jonathan Riley-Smith has pointed out that “modern Western public opinion, Arab nationalism, and Pan-Islamism all share perceptions of crusading that have more to do with nineteenth-century European imperialism than with actuality.” Muslims, in particular, have developed what Riley-Smith calls “mythistories” concerning the putative injuries that they received at the crusaders’ hands.
- Nor were the Crusades “thoughtless explosions of barbarism,” as Riley-Smith accurately characterizes their reputation today. They had a sophisticated underlying rationale, elaborated theologically by Christian nations threatened by Muslim invaders who had managed to reach into the heart of Europe
- In trying to make sense of their humiliation under Western imperialist powers, aggrieved Muslims have come upon an ingenious but false interpretation of history that sees their nineteenth- and twentieth-century exploitation as a continuation of the medieval Crusades.

Like so many other ‘hot button’ issues, the Crusades are an example of modern society and especially the media’s ignorance to true historical record and sensationalist revisionism that seeps even into the Christian world’s understanding. As a Church, as believers, we should stand together, know our history, and not be afraid to go to battle with lies and defamation of our Church.

(Note: Obviously, I do not fully condone all that occurred on the Crusades, and there were most certainly atrocities committed by the Crusaders, but these events really deserve a second look, one without the predisposed condemnation of all the Crusades in general.)

Nov

“Then I heard the sound that all Arctic explorers dread… the pitiless bark of the sea lion!”

By Methuselah's Beard 13 Comments

Categories: Being Frank...

I would like to relate to you all a little problem I have. It’s nothing sensational or controversial. In fact, it’s probably not even the least bit interesting. But it’s 4.39pm in London and it’s already dark like it’s 6.30pm. It’s also cold and despite living in Hampstead, which is apparently the playgroud of the rich and famous in London, I have yet to run into Russell Crowe, or Tim Burton, or Gwyneth Paltrow, or George Michael, or even anyone less famous and well remembered like Boy George. In fact, the only person I’ve run into that can have any claim to fame so far has been former Being Frank contributor ‘The Captain’ who I chanced a meeting with at the Camden Town tube station. Joyful greetings were exchanged and ‘The Captain’ left my wife with a copy of ‘Vanity Fair’ to remember our encounter by.

So the cold and the dark and the non-encounters with famous people has led me to look introspectively in order to find something to write about this week.

I would like to think of myself as well read as I alluded to in last weeks post (I now carry loose change with me in case I see any beggars with dogs… how can you refuse a dog?). I read the Hobbit and LoTR when I was 11 (although I skipped through all the poems and songs. Oh my word were those long.) and have carried on my love affair with fantasy novels since then. I’ve read Eddings, Feist, Williams, Martin, and a whole host of other fantasy authors.

In 1994 I made the mistake of picking up ‘The Eye of the World’ by Robert Jordan. 15 years later and his saga is still yet to reach its end, although tragically Robert’s life has. Fortunately, the series is being concluded by another author and the latest book has just been released. Lately, I’ve also started reading H.P. Lovecraft and I hope that doesn’t make me a bad person. I love reading all sorts actually and even own a book about the history of salt.

However for all my reading, I have never been able to get into religious books. Whether it’s by St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, or some other comtemporary author, my eyes and brain just glaze over after the first few chapters. I don’t know what it is. Maybe it’s because the material doesn’t fire my imagination, but it should shouldn’t it? I really enjoy listening to Scott Hahn’s talks but find I can’t read his books. My Dad owns quite a few good books on matters religious but I haven’t so much as touched them (except to move them out of the way…). I feel this is probably holding back my spiritual growth and growth as a Catholic but I just can’t get into it.

So that’s my problem. Now back to Book 12 of Robert Jordan’s 100 book saga…

Nov

The new Primate of England ‘offered flowers at the altar of Hindu deities’

By Filia Day 76 Comments

Categories: Being Frank...

This is doing the rounds now on the innerweb

Archbishop Vincent Nichols ‘offered flowers at the altar of Hindu deities’

“Archbishop Nichols, what were you thinking? Your own press office has reported that you offered flowers at the altar of Hindu deities during a visit to a temple.”
(UPDATE: since this post went up, the relevant sentence has been removed from the Westminster diocesan website.)

I don’t have any trouble with interfaith dialogue. It’s a good thing and is very important in our times – something which Vatican II is absolutely right about. However, I think that in the course of such meetings there are certain difficulties which present problems for Catholics: this is one such issue. What does a Catholic, especially a priest, bishop, or cardinal do, when presented with a public situation where he is expected to honour, show reverence, light candles, offer flowers, or do any other form of sacrifice, to a (false) pagan god(s)?

St Justin Martyr, was indeed martyred in Rome for refusing to sacrifice to the Roman pagan gods. Here is the account of the discourse between St Justin and Rusticus, the Prefect of Rome, under the Emperor Marcus Aurelius.

“The Prefect Rusticus says: Approach and sacrifice, all of you, to the gods. Justin says: No one in his right mind gives up piety for impiety. The Prefect Rusticus says: If you do not obey, you will be tortured without mercy. Justin replies: That is our desire, to be tortured for Our Lord, Jesus Christ, and so to be saved, for that will give us salvation and firm confidence at the more terrible universal tribunal of Our Lord and Saviour. And all the martyrs said: Do as you wish; for we are Christians, and we do not sacrifice to idols. The Prefect Rusticus read the sentence: Those who do not wish to sacrifice to the gods and to obey the emperor will be scourged and beheaded according to the laws. The holy martyrs glorifying God betook themselves to the customary place, where they were beheaded and consummated their martyrdom confessing their Saviour.”

What if St Justin, had thought, “Well, maybe I should show these guys that I respect their cult, and after all, that will make a better case to them for the Gospel of Christ, because it will show them that I am reasonable…and balanced…and not extreme…”

We are living in different times, and that is why Vatican II has shifted the focus somewhat – to respectful dialogue, but that doesn’t mean that we just sell-out, due to human respect, everytime somebody asks us to honour a god that we don’t believe in, that we know to be patently false, and objectively speaking, an idol. Do you think that standing up for Christ just might have the effect of giving witness to Him !?#$!&?*!@? and allow the Holy Spirit to anoint the action?

Damien Thompson writes:

This is a blunder, however well-intentioned. Inter-faith dialogue is a minefield for Christian leaders, as Pope John Paul II discovered when he prayed alongside non-Christians at Assisi in 1986. This visit sounds ill-conceived from start to finish. The offer of the candle and the words accompanying it imply that Hindus worship the same God as Christians, which I would have thought even a primary-school textbook would make clear is not the case.

This reminds us of other such interfaith confusions from recent years: Pope John Paul II kissing the Koran at the Vatican (May 14, 1999); allowing himself to be blessed and marked with ‘sacred ashes’ and the sign of the Tilak on the forehead by Hindu women and priestesses (Feb 2 & 5, 1986); offering sacrifice to Animist forest-spirits in Togo, Africa (August 8, 1985); praying with a buddha on the altar at Assisi whilst buddhists chanted their ritual incantations around the altar (Oct 27, 1986), and doing nothing to remove them; allowing a pagan mexican shaman/priestess to perform a cleansing ritual and ‘exorcism’ on him during a canonisation Mass in Mexico (July 31, 2002) … etc …

We know Pope John Paul II was a good good Pope (probably a saint), but some of these gestures have sewed confusion, and misunderstanding (saints can make mistakes), and led to other imitations inside the Church by others who are not formed so well, which have gone a lot further, and lead to far worse consequences. Everybody knows what his intentions were, but some of these actions leave some things to be explained.

And recently, at Fatima, there have been interfaith gestures which seem to have gone too far. Some Hindus were allowed to come and offer sacrifice to their gods on the altar of the shrine at Fatima: photos here, and report of the event here.

As Catholics, we should have a deep respect for their religious sense, for their religious attitude, for their religious cult (which often includes very authentic religious gestures, and symbols, prayers, and elements – I hope that nobody here denies that) … and these are often an expression of a very deep and true dimension of human life – a dimension which is open to and seeks for transcendence – and looks for meaning, and searches for an explanation for the reality (visible and invisible) of this world. We respect all this deep religious sense, truth, and light, found embodied in other pagan religions, and expressed by members of those religions (even though it is very truly shot-through and mingled with error, superstition, magic, and shadows).

But we don’t offer sacrifice (in any form) to their false gods. The Scriptures are very clear about that, for two very good reasons: (1) it offends (sin) the Most Holy Trinity, who is the One True God (“You shall have no other God before me”: Exodus 20:3; 34:14, Deuteronomy 5:7), and (2) it confuses others in their pursuit of the truth (gives scandal).

We don’t perform actions, which give them (these Hindus) and others the impression that we believe that their gods are real, even if we respect their religious attitude, and on the inside say to ourselves “I’m only doing this so as not to offend these people. Jesus, you see my heart.”

This type of duplicity doesn’t fool God, who should be the One we are truly afraid of offending out of love (the filial gift of the Holy Spirit of Fear of the Lord), and it ends up confusing everybody else, because they can only see the outward appearances of the act in itself, not the inteior mental reservation that is held (here we are assuming that these prelates are actually making a mental reservation when they offer reverence and sacrifice to a false god – we hope they are !!)

When one offers light (candles), flowers, thanks, praise, reverence … whatever … to these “gods”, the outward action normally and ordinarily symbolizes an interior movement – towards the god – as if we think they are real: that is what people looking on from the outside will naturally begin to think. Then they end up being given the impression of, and being drawn towards, a universal cyncretism, which thinks, “Ah, the Catholic Church, and Vatican II, thinks that all religions are really all just heading towards worship of the same God. It doesn’t really matter. They’re all the same.”

This has happened too many times in recent years and it needs to stop (there are websites which document these things). Our Church men need to stand up for Christ, and respect and honour Christ first and foremost, whilst genuinely wishing to dialogue and discuss with these other religions. We can respect certain elements of their relgious cult; we can absolutely respect their religious attitude and sense, which is emminently human; but above all, we must retain and engage our respect and love for Jesus, the true Incarnation of the Divine in this world, Our Lord and Saviour: the Way, the Truth, and the Life; because, in doing so, we also genuinely love our pagan brothers and sisters, by giving them authentic witness to the truth – which they need! and which Jesus asks of us.

When we go to these “meetings”, we go as Christians, not just as human beings with a religious sense – this is very important to understand. We can dialogue at a purely human level, at a purely religious level, or at both levels, but we do so as Christians; and as such, we can’t suspend our Christian beliefs, even though we talk with others at a non-Christian level (we can do this because we are also human beings with a religious attitude). But when confronted with an action (asked of us, or imposed upon us) which will compromise our Christian faith, we must put Jesus first.

Some final questions remain: when these Hindus, Animists, Voodoo priests et al, almost impose their religious practices on us at these “meetings”, do we ever offer a Christian blessing in return? Do we offer them a special Apostolic blessing? Do we ever ask them to kiss a crucifix? Do we ever ask them to kneel as we bring out the Blessed Sacrament for half an hour of adoration of Christ, the True God? And finally, do we give them an invitation to come to a catechism class, or hand them a Bible?

Just askin… :smile1_ee:

Nov

In response to Benedicta…

By Tuppence 4 Comments

Categories: Being Frank...

Mental note…always load up drafts of BF posts as soon as they’re written…do not leave only copy on work laptop. Sick days at home without work laptop pose a substantial problem to accessing draft posts. *shakes head in disappointment*

I had wanted to respond to the rather hearty comment by Benedicta responding to my post from last week (18 Nov) however maybe it’s to everyone’s benefit that I will have to recreate from memory a more condensed version of my response.

So…quick fire…

- I don’t imagine reading during the homily (or any other form of profane engagement during a sacred moment) is something unique to the Congo…however it’s definitely on another level from a parent giving the 4 year old a bible picture book to keep them occupied during Mass. Upon further reflection, I realised, well, at least they’re not pretending to pay attention…but still…whether it’s in the Congo, in provincial NZ, in a Catholic Mass or an Anglican choir…keep the profane where it belongs folks…

- Benedicta asked if I, the poster, was possibly falling into the trap of judging by appearances…possibly, but doesn’t the value of judgement rest upon how we act in response to that? I still did my best to introduce myself, to be polite, to give the singing my best shot…I think we often make a mistake between the concept of judging and being judgemental. As moral, reasoning beings, we have to make judgements about people – whether you’re recruiting someone for a job (like our great friend On the Road) or voting for the next prime minister. It’s all about what evidence you’re taking on board.

- I did ask myself later…maybe no one’s ever helped these Hannah Montana girls realise the beautiful reality of that which they’re participating in…religious practice can unfortunately become quite ‘cultural’ in certain places where that faith is the majority. In New Zealand, we don’t have this – you’re sticking your neck out if you still go to Mass after the age of 14…it’s not really the ‘norm’…(as Benedicta points out using her provincial parish as an example)

- Yes, Kiwi lasses, we can be a bit behind the eight ball in terms of self-presentation and median elegance levels…sorely obvious when we step out in the cobble-stoned streets of Paris. Agreed Benedicta. But we do have a pretty healthy sense of fashion I reckon…

- ‘Mao suits’ ‘clothed brethren plainness’ and ‘drabness and blandness and androgenous attire’…ooh, ouch, thanks Benedicta. I have to admit Benedicta, that you may well be judging me according to something even less than appearances – I went hunting for my Mao, closed brethren and androgenous attire and realised I must have left it all at home in NZ… My intention was not to diss the idea of colourful, expressive, lively, feminine dress – quite to the contrary, that is one of the things I love about Congo and many African countries for that matter. I think what concerns me is the materialism that is so rampant among the wealthy elite of Congo (which reminds me, these girls and most of the choir do belong to that reasonably wealthy echelon…though there are plenty whom are very nice and sympathetic too) In New Zealand, while we still have a pretty decent gap between the haves and have nots, it pales in comparison to the Congo, and add to that how much more conspicious is the wealth here, and you maybe start to get the idea…

- Maybe I was a little harsh on the ladies at the piety stall…after all, they were at the piety stall…and maybe I didn’t make it clear enough, but in recounting that particular moment, I wanted to put across the irony and paradox…indeed, poignancy, thank you Benedicta…

Nov

WarmingGate

By The Dumb Ox 97 Comments

Categories: Being Frank...

News has broken in the last couple of days about a massive scandal that threatens to be the undoing of the global warming alarmist machine and its accompanying ideologies and moneymaking machines.

Here’s the guts of the story – last week someone hacked into the servers at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit – which is apparently the leading climate change research unit in the UK.

The hacker then leaked over 120 Megabytes of data, which included a lot of emails from the scientific staff at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, on to the Internet.

If these emails are correct – and Phil Jones, Director of the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, has publicly confirmed that their centre was hacked last week and that the data on the Internet appears to be genuine – then this is one of the biggest scandals to rock the scientific community in decades.

Why?

Well, the emails that have been leaked clearly show a consistent pattern of totally unethical research practices which were carried out in order to deceive people into believing that global warming is being caused by human beings.

Among other things, these emails show that the scientific staff deleted data, rigged data, hid data, deliberately interfered with the peer review process to bolster their case, and they even threatened to have scientists who didn’t agree with them removed from their positions.

Make no mistake about it – this is a very serious and very huge scandal, which has only just begun to unfold in the mainstream media here in NZ.

And yes, these leaked emails involve some very senior players in the world of climate science.

Here are some of the direct quotes from the many leaked emails (any spelling mistakes were in the originals)…

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

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

“If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.”

“I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc. They use your Tornetrask recon as the main whipping boy. (…) 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 Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting – to support Dave Stahle’s and really as soon as you can. Please”

“I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. (…) I don’t think it’d be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have - they just are what they are”

“At this point, it is fair to say that this adjustment was arbitrary and the link between Bristlecone pine growth and CO2 is , at the very least, arguable.”

“We probably need to say more about this. Land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming — and skeptics might claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important.”

“The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.”

“I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC , which were not always the same.”

“Hard copies of the WG1 report from CUP have arrived here today. Ammann/Wahl – try and change the Received date! Don’t give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with.”

“If the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data available – raw data PLUS results from all intermediate calculations – I will not submit any further papers to RMS journals.”

—You can read a full summary of the key statements from various emails here—

The following is a good summary of this scandal from the Wall Street Journal…

A partial review of the emails shows that in many cases, climate scientists revealed that their own research wasn’t always conclusive. In others, they discussed ways to paper over differences among themselves in order to present a “unified” view on climate change. On at least one occasion, climate scientists were asked to “beef up” conclusions about climate change and extreme weather events because environmental officials in one country were planning a “big public splash.”

The release of the documents has given ammunition to many skeptics of man-made global warming, who for years have argued that the scientific “consensus” was less robust than the official IPCC summaries indicated and that climate researchers systematically ostracized other scientists who presented findings that differed from orthodox views.

Since the hacking, many Web sites catering to climate skeptics have pored over the material and concluded that it shows a concerted effort to distort climate science. Other Web sites catering to climate scientists have dismissed those claims.

The tension between those two camps is apparent in the emails. More recent messages showed climate scientists were increasingly concerned about blog postings and articles on leading skeptical Web sites. Much of the internal discussion over scientific papers centered on how to pre-empt attacks from prominent skeptics, for example.

Fellow scientists who disagreed with orthodox views on climate change were variously referred to as “prats” and “utter prats.” In other exchanges, one climate researcher said he was “very tempted” to “beat the crap out of” a prominent, skeptical U.S. climate scientist.

In several of the emails, climate researchers discussed how to arrange for favorable reviewers for papers they planned to publish in scientific journals. At the same time, climate researchers at times appeared to pressure scientific journals not to publish research by other scientists whose findings they disagreed with.

One email from 1999, titled “CENSORED!!!!!” showed one U.S.-based scientist uncomfortable with such tactics. “As for thinking that it is ‘Better that nothing appear, than something unacceptable to us’ … as though we are the gatekeepers of all that is acceptable in the world of paleoclimatology seems amazingly arrogant. Science moves forward whether we agree with individual articles or not,” the email said.

More recent exchanges centered on requests by independent climate researchers for access to data used by British scientists for some of their papers. The hacked folder is labeled “FOIA,” a reference to the Freedom of Information Act requests made by other scientists for access to raw data used to reach conclusions about global temperatures.

Many of the email exchanges discussed ways to decline such requests for information, on the grounds that the data was confidential or was intellectual property. In other email exchanges related to the FOIA requests, some U.K. researchers asked foreign scientists to delete all emails related to their work for the upcoming IPCC summary. In others, they discussed boycotting scientific journals that require them to make their data public.