1 So here we are at my house, sitting at our separate computers calling back and forth to each other, have you seen this, or this? and sending links that get more and more outrageous. Such as this
http://lacoastpost.com/blog/?p=16802 
And if you link and read that it takes you to this from the latest Nature.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html
Oh, the arrogance of it all, the condescension is embarrassing.

2 Ruth -- Here's another one, called The Dog Ate Global Warming:

*****
So the weather data that go into the historical climate records that are required to verify models of global warming aren’t the original records at all. Jones and Wigley, however, weren’t specific about what was done to which station in order to produce their record, which, according to the IPCC, showed a warming of 0.6° +/– 0.2°C in the 20th century.

Now begins the fun. Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, wondered where that “+/–” came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones’s response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

Reread that statement, for it is breathtaking in its anti-scientific thrust. In fact, the entire purpose of replication is to “try and find something wrong.” The ultimate objective of science is to do things so well that, indeed, nothing is wrong.
*****

3 The original article on The Dog Ate Global Warming: was dated Sept 23, and has been amended but it tells me more and more that this was a whistle blower.  There has to be someone with a conscience in there somewhere. That would have been around the time someone was shopping those emails around to reporters who took no action.