We generally assume that scientists are smart. And maybe CRU's Phil Jones is--after all, he's been successful at a multi-decade global warming scare. But the complaints he has registered about his leaked emails are stunningly unintelligent.

"One has to wonder if it is a coincidence that this email correspondence has been stolen and published at this time. This may be a concerted attempt to put a question mark over the science of climate change in the run-up to the Copenhagen talks." Jones said in a statement on the University's Web site.

This has to be one of the silliest responses to ClimateGate.

Effectively he's saying "How dare they publish the words I have written so close to Copenhagen. My words can only harm Copenhagen. How dare they do it!"

No, I don't think it's a coincidence that the email correspondence, data, and computer code was published so close to Copenhagen. Yes, it was done to put a "question mark" over the science of global warming. And rightfully so.

I hate to state the obvious, but if Mr. Jones was on the up and up, and if his science was sound, not only would publishing his material be absolutely harmless, he would have published it himself years ago rather than stonewalling Freedom of Information requests for the data. If publishing Jones' material is tantamount to "putting a question mark over the science of climate change," what does that say about the quality of Jones' material?

This isn't a smear campaign. These are the scientists' very own words, their conversations, their computer code. And it all speaks for itself.

The simple fact is that there are skeletons in the closet of global warming and this "scientist" is just upset that those skeletons were exposed at the worst possible time for his political objectives.