[jmyc]

From your link, "Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct" (concerning the "climategate" e-mails).

By hearing the cherry-picked quotes from those e-mails, you could get the impression that they're full of fraud, but now that the dust has settled and the investigations have been made, do you really think they're disgusting?

I think this example is counter to your point. The initial media reaction gave the complete wrong impression, and the later findings that the story is nonsense went completely unreported.

[javajosh]

> this example is counter to your point

Actually, you're right! I read (some of) the original 'climategate' emails, and my opinion was quite contrary to virtually every independent committee. Those scientists were dirty. And clearly so.

I guess the real upshot is that "the spirit of HN" is to check original sources for stuff you really care about. It's important to do so, just in case the "experts" get it wrong.

If Scientology is important to you, then check those emails!