I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but Tiger Woods has gotten himself into a little trouble the past week or so. But, no matter what Tiger has done in regard to fidelity of marriage, it has absolutely no bearing on whether or not he won the 1997 Masters, or 2000 U.S. Open, or any of the 70-odd PGA events he’s won. Yes, his indiscretions are a blow to his image and may affect his endorsement deals, but golf history is unaffected, and (psychology aside) his status as a golfer is unchanged. How he is perceived by the public is what has changed, because he has tarnished his clean-cut image. His golf swing is unaffected. The people that didn’t like him before have one more reason not to like him, but rooting for or against someone on the tube doesn’t affect the outcome of the match.

And so it is with climategate. Public perception is affected, because of the political aspects of the scientists’ words and actions, but not so much the science. But it matters, because it’s one more excuse to cast aspersions, regardless of the validity of the claims. The ones making the most noise about this aren’t the type who let facts get in their way. The asymmetry of the situation is very striking: the publicly active climate change deniers have been shown to be wrong many times in the past, on a variety of points, and yet none of them seem to have folded their tents. The problem is that with any complex problem, it’s fairly easy to make an incorrect statement that sounds plausible, and yet it takes far longer to set the record straight than it does to misinform. And yet the act of misinforming doesn’t seem to damage the credibility of the denialists, which is probably one of the reasons scientists in general don’t wish to engage them. This isn’t a clash between scientific views, it’s science vs propaganda, and that’s not a level playing field.

(h/t to the infinite one for the vid)