budgenator's Journal: The Consensus on AGW

2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself - most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change. ...
proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.Memorandum submitted by the Institute of Physics (CRU 39)

The IOP is a scientific charity with 36,000 members worldwide whose values are "... to demonstrate integrity, objectivity and rigour; a clear drive to benefit society; and the strongest commitment to physics." for a society such as this to have sent this memo to the British parliament is particularly damning to the climate science establishment. I hate to say it but the field of Climatology is so FUBARed that the most reasonable answer is to write-off the $3-4 billion spent on research to date and start over.