Let me explain one thing: I have zero intellectual respect for most climatologists, meteorologists, ecologists and environmental scientists. My undergraduate degree is a BS in physics, and I have known, taken classes with and spent leisure time with (read: drank with) these students of the "soft sciences." And I must say that few of these people are what you could call mental heavyweights. If you could buy them for how smart they are and sell them for how smart they think they are, you'd make double and triple digit profits almost every time. so it comes as no surprise that they have cooked the books and fudged the numbers.
Now, there will be long cycles of damage control that may have some effect to blunt the blow to the AGW movement, but I have more confidence than ever that the debate isn't over after all, and perhaps true science may yet be performed on climate issues. All I ask for is that we ask honest questions (not leading or "gotcha" ones), that we acknowledge the limitations of out measurements and modeling methods, and that we go where they evidence leads us, not the other way 'round.
