When scientists become political–even with the best of intentions–the result is sloppy science. That appears to be the case with the ongoing saga of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has been embroiled in controversy around email leaks. The group does not conduct its own research but filters the work of researchers around the world.

Now, according to the WSJ, the IPCC is working to heal the bruises on its tarnished image, to smooth over the negative effects of inside dialog such as this:

As climate change gained public attention in recent decades, some IPCC-affiliated scientists privately expressed concerns that conclusions were risked getting oversimplified. Keith Briffa, a climate scientist at East Anglia, expressed this worry in emails to colleagues in 1999, as work intensified on the IPCC’s third major report, published in 2001. Mr. Briffa’s particular concern: tree rings.

Scientists use tree rings and other proxies to assess temperatures thousands of years ago, before thermometers existed. Wider rings indicate greater growth, generally suggesting warmer temperatures, or higher precipitation, or both. Mr. Briffa pioneered the technique.

“I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more,’ ” he wrote to other researchers in the email, among those hacked at East Anglia. “In reality the situation is not quite so simple,” Mr. Briffa wrote.