Anyone saying Climategate doesn't matter is full of ..it!

http://tinyurl.com/yz3u9do
Climategate: why it matters The corruption of climate science revealed by the purloined CRU files undermines the claims of the global-warming alarmists.by Phil Manger...//
http://tinyurl.com/yb8j22h
Climategate: Follow the Money Climate change researchers must believe in the reality of global warming just as a priest must believe in the existence of God. By BRET STEPHENS
...these gifts—amounting to about 0.00027% of Exxon's 2008 profits of $45 billion—you might think you'd hit upon the scandal of the age. But thanks to what now goes by the name of climategate, it turns out the real scandal lies elsewhere.
Climategate, as readers of these pages know, concerns some of the world's leading climate scientists working in tandem to block freedom of information requests, blackball dissenting scientists, manipulate the peer-review process, and obscure, destroy or massage inconvenient temperature data—facts that were laid bare by last week's disclosure of thousands of emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, or CRU...why the scientists behaved this way to begin with, especially since the science behind man-made global warming is said to be firmly settled. ...it helps to turn the alarmists' follow-the-money methods right back at them....between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient) of some $19 million worth of research grants, a sixfold increase over what he'd been awarded in the 1990s...Why did the money pour in so quickly? Because the climate alarm kept ringing so loudly: The louder the alarm, the greater the sums...European Commission's most recent appropriation for climate research comes to nearly $3 billion, and that's not counting funds from the EU's member governments. In the U.S., the House intends to spend $1.3 billion on NASA's climate efforts, $400 million on NOAA's, and another $300 million for the National Science Foundation. The states also have a piece of the action, with California—apparently not feeling bankrupt enough—devoting $600 million to their own climate initiative. In Australia, alarmists have their own Department of Climate Change at their funding disposal...
this is only a fraction of the $94 billion that HSBC Bank estimates has been spent globally this year on what it calls "green stimulus"—largely ethanol and other alternative energy schemes—of the kind from which Al Gore and his partners at Kleiner Perkins hope to profit handsomely....they depend on an inherently corrupting premise, namely that the hypothesis on which their livelihood depends has in fact been proved. Absent that proof, everything they represent—including the thousands of jobs they provide—vanishes. This is what's known as a vested interest, and vested interests are an enemy of sound science...//
http://tinyurl.com/yevjavz
Climategate: Science Is Dying Science is on the credibility bubble. By DANIEL HENNINGER
Surely there must have been serious men and women in the hard sciences who at some point worried that their colleagues in the global warming movement were putting at risk the credibility of everyone in science. The nature of that risk has been twofold: First, that the claims of the climate scientists might buckle beneath the weight of their breathtaking complexity. Second, that the crudeness of modern politics, once in motion, would trample the traditions and culture of science to achieve its own policy goals. With the scandal at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, both have happened at once. I don't think most scientists appreciate what has hit them. This isn't only about the credibility of global warming. For years, global warming and its advocates have been the public face of hard science...****This is where Henninger is wrong, although his mistake is shared by myriad others. Climate "science" is NOT "hard science." It bears the same relation to real hard science (by which I mean physics, chemistry, biology, engineering, math--stretching the definition a bit, where agreement is possible between theory and empirical observation)as Economic "Science" does. Both Climatology and Economics are characterized by the use of non-falsifiable models ( i.e. models of reality that cannot be tested in the real world ) about which practitioners can disagree fundamentally and over an extended period of time. When there is agreement, it is often arrived at by intimidation, groupthink or loss of interest and moving on to newer subjects. Yoda was trained as a PhD physicist, was a working physicist and physics professor for years and, together with others ( including public figures such as S. Fred Singer et al,) has been skeptical about the claims of this "climate science" from the getgo. The recent revelations might be dispositive but they were anticipated for several years. The salient and immediate reason not to believe Mann's "Hockey Stick" was that it failed to reproduce the Medieval Warming Period or the Little Ice Age. Even the models put forth by stock brokers give clients the ability to "back test" them, a necessary but not sufficient condition. **** ...The public was told repeatedly that something called "the scientific community" had affirmed the science beneath this inquiry. A Nobel Prize was bestowed (on a politician).****And not, of course, in one of the sciences.****...Global warming enlisted the collective reputation of science....Postmodernism, a self-consciously "unprovable" theory, replaced formal structures with subjectivity. With the revelations of East Anglia, this slippery and variable intellectual world has crossed into the hard sciences...This has harsh implications for the credibility of science generally. Hard science, alongside medicine, was one of the few things left accorded automatic stature and respect by most untrained lay persons. ...conclude that hard science has become just another faction, as politicized and "messy" as, say, gender studies. The New England Journal of Medicine has turned into a weird weekly amalgam of straight medical-research and propaganda for the Obama redesign of U.S. medicine. The East Anglians' mistreatment of scientists who challenged global warming's claims—plotting to shut them up and shut down their ability to publish—evokes the attempt to silence Galileo. The exchanges between Penn State's Michael Mann and East Anglia CRU director Phil Jones sound like Father Firenzuola, the Commissary-General of the Inquisition....climatologist fellows, helped by the cardinals of the press, mocked and ostracized scientists who questioned this grand theory of global doom. Even a doubter as eminent as Princeton's Freeman Dyson was dismissed as an aging crank....relatively new, very postmodern environmental idea known as "the precautionary principle."..."When an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically."...this demotes science's traditional standards of evidence. ...The Environmental Protection Agency's dramatic Endangerment Finding in April that greenhouse gas emissions qualify as an air pollutant—...a precautionary approach. The EPA admitted "varying degrees of uncertainty across many of these scientific issues." ...in the new position of saying, close enough is good enough. One hopes civil engineers never build bridges under this theory.****Harks to the perjorative "Good enough for government work."****...If the new ethos is that "close-enough" science is now sufficient to achieve political goals, serious scientists should be under no illusion that politicians will press-gang them into service for future agendas. Everyone working in science, no matter their politics, has an stake in cleaning up the mess revealed by the East Anglia emails. Science is on the credibility bubble. If it pops, centuries of what we understand to be the role of science go with it.//
****Heedless of the facts, and trying to ignore that they've been outed, the AGW community is doubling down and insisting that they're right, despite even their own faulty predictions and deviation from the evidence. After all, Coperhagen is coming up and they might as well tough it out and keep the money flowing, whatever the scientific "truth."****
http://tinyurl.com/ybhyqtd
Study: Slowdown in warming last year not permanentWASHINGTON – Climate researchers say cooler temperatures in North America last year do not mean global warming is easing. Their report comes just days before President Barack Obama goes to Copenhagen...the last decade has been the hottest in thousands of years, according to climate records.****NO! Only according to the guys who falsify climate records!***** However, the warming eased a bit last year over North America, and groups seeking to deny climate change seized on that in an effort to challenge the idea of overall warming. North America wasn't as warm as expected because of cooler water in the North Pacific, but the rest of the world continued to warm, the university and government researchers said Friday.****Gee, their models missed a rather important phenomenon. If the entire world warmed up anyway, and North America was cooler, shouldn't other parts have warmed even more than they predicted? It's getting to be a joke, except that they've chewed up hundreds of billions of dollars all over the world and could commit the U.S. to layout billions more chasing a chimera ( which would have nil effect under any and all circumstances because China and India won't go along.)****