It's interesting that you link to the "Climategate" Wikipedia entry with the words "suspect at best" when the article seems to indicate that most reviews of the "climategate" situation indicate that the "massaging" was required to get sets of disparate data to use the same scale of units

What you think the words he uses to link the page represent a reasoned analysis and a sincere attempt to understand what he linked to? Ha! Not a chance. It's "Climategate" and the name alone proves it's all a fraud, that's all he needs to know, contrary facts need not apply.

It's why he says that the last decade showed cooling when that's patently false, and only appears to be true if you just compare 1998 (a record year) with 2008 (a cool year compared to recent trends though still one of the hotter years ever). If you instead compared 1999 (a much cooler year than 1998) and 2009 (the 2nd hottest year recorded) you could say ZOMG Epic Warming! But climatologists don't do that, because that's disingenuous. Yet he's the one who supposedly knows what's up. See the trend here?

One flood in Australia does not refute global warming science.

Yes it does, if you're the kind of person who thinks "Global Warming? Ha! We had record snow here in New England!" and "Climate Change - Ha! The climate has always been changing!" are reasonable arguments. Of course they had already decided global warming science was false from the get-go, and thus only seek out the arguments that confirm that bias and never attempt to discover if the argument has any merit.

Aaaaand of course always accuses climatologists of having the faults they themselves exhibit with every sentence. Wait for it, no really.