Wesley Smith's First Things blog nails the connection between the ClimateGate emails and the similar authoritarian approach to Darwin and design. The Wall Street Journal editorial he cites elicits comparable comments from several other readers who noted the paper's article online.
Consider these lines from the editorial:
"The real issue is what the messages say about the way the much-ballyhooed scientific consensus on global warming was arrived at, and how a single view of warming and its causes is being enforced...
"According to this privileged group, only those whose work has been published in select scientific journals, after having gone through the "peer-review" process, can be relied on to critique the science. And sure enough, any challenges from critics outside this clique are dismissed and disparaged.
"As anonymous reviewers of choice for certain journals, Mr. Mann & Co. had considerable power to enforce the consensus, but it was not absolute, as they discovered in 2003. Mr. Mann noted in a March 2003 email, after the journal "Climate Research" published a paper not to Mr. Mann's liking, that "This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the 'peer-reviewed literature'. Obviously, they found a solution to that--take over a journal!"
"Mr. Mann went on to suggest that the journal itself be blackballed.."
As Bill Dembski has noted at Uncommon Descent, "Sound familiar?"
(Meanwhile, the London Telegraph's Christopher Booker reminds us that the scientists involved in ClimateGate are the leaders of the warming pack, not just a few who share the supposed consensus opinion. It is their work upon which the international consensus is based.)