A new paper in Climatic Change looks at Climategate and wonders whether upholders of the IPCC consensus haven't been shooting themselves in the foot. It's paywalled, so I will quote relatively extensively.
'Climategate: the role of the social sciences', by Myanna Lahsen of the Brazilian Institute for Space Research, opens with an absolute howler
...there was a well-organized PR campaign ready to go at the time the emails were released (Pearce 2010a, 180), aimed at shaping public perceptions of ACC and undermine efforts to reduce global emissions of greenhouse gases.
Following the citation to its source one finds Pearce quoting Michael Mann as saying that there appeared to have been a well orchestrated PR campaign. Thus one moves from a statement about appearances (and from a scientist who enjoys a reputation, even among his supporters, for making wild unsubstantiated statements) to a statement of certainty. Thus myths are propagated; has anyone ever presented any evidence of a "well-organized PR campaign"?
This shambles aside, the paper still has some interesting things to say, although one has to wade through the double whammy of the contorted language favoured by many social scientists and the need for the author to present an acceptable front on AGW by constant reference to "contrarians" and "backlash scientists". Notably, however, Lahsen draws the line at "denier" and "denialist", noting that these terms
are used unreflexively by many social scientists, [to] foreclose the facts and – together with the pervasive tendency to collapse contrarianism and skepticism – erase a space for legitimate questioning of the consensus position...
Oreskes and Conway are also criticised. Their work, while "carefully researched" also "illustrates current scholarly literature’s avoidance of critical analysis of the scientific mainstream"; its tendency to divide the climate world into two competing camps obscures dissenting views within the mainstream and "space for legitimate doubt and questioning outside of the IPCC consensus position". Note the recognition of legitimate doubt - a step forward I feel.
The curious need to badmouth dissenters while recognising the failings of the upholders is stark at the start of the conclusions section:
Advocates of concern about [AGW] commonly attribute instances of weakened public faith in science, and in the IPCC, to the backlash coalition. The premise is that the public is duped by backlash actors. Certainly, the backlash involves deep and problematic deception and manipulations that undermine democratic processes and informed decision-making. But the US public is right to believe that scientific experts still are arguing about ACC in terms of its likely extent and impacts. They are even smart to believe that, because they see beyond what they are being told by powerful and prestigious scientists and analysts; they may rightly perceive logical inconsistency when advocates of concern, including some of the authors discussed above, that scientific research always involves doubt, that scientists by nature are inclined to question, that scientific findings involve evidence the details of which remain unclear and can be falsified by new discoveries and, on the other hand, suggest that the science is settled and that scientists all agree about [AGW] – as if dissent does not exist, also outside of the small faction of contrarians.
This is undoubtedly correct. Many sceptics come to scepticism precisely because messages of consensus are so obviously dishonest when applied to a system as complex and as ill-understood as the climate.
Lahsen goes on to suggest a way out of climate science's mess:
An overarching strategic decision for climate-concerned scientists and scholars is whether to continue the long-standing foreclosure of facts or dare to show the social underpinnings of the production and use of climate science upholding concern about ACC. I argue that the latter is needed, and that it can serve to create space and warranted legitimacy for questioning of (aspects of) the science. Ironically, foreclosure of facts and idealization of IPCC science heighten vulnerability to contrarian attacks, and these representational practices increase public distrust when chinks in the armor are revealed.
Amen to that.