You know how Creationists like to repeat (over and over and over again) "it's just a theory!" about Evolution?
Personally I just roll my eyes at that argument because I can see that they're trying to conflate the scientific use of the word "theory" and the common use of the word "theory".
Your argument is no better.
You are trying to conflate the scientific use of the word "consensus" with the common use of the "consensus".
There is a difference.

I've heard reports that the number of scientific papers being retracted is rising in all fields of study, so I have to ask:
How do you know that what occurred at the CRU is not "within normal bounds of science"? You can't actually know that unless we can read the work related emails of all scientists in all fields of study to objectively compare them... and that's where a sincere argument for greater scientific transparency begins:
A sincere argument for greater scientific transparency starts with new rules that apply generally to all scientists in all fields of study regardless of who pays for their research (public or private funding). That's how you raise the bar for scrutiny when you genuinely care about the quality of science.

The American Traditions Institute is not genuinely interested in greater scientific transparency, they're just interested in casting doubt on a specific scientist (and his specific field of study) because they have deemed his research "heresy" to their politics.

There were at least 5 independent investigations launched as a result of Climategate and none of them found any evidence of scientific malpractice. That is to say the emails didn't reveal anything about Climatology that isn't happening in every other branch of scientific research.

Say, but on the topic of scientific malpractice: Did you hear what happened to the climate change "skeptic" journal Pattern Recognition in Physics?
The nepotism and scientific malpractice became so rampant that the publisher actually had to shut the whole thing down (it was becoming an embarrassment)!

Creationists blame Christopher Hitchens for "polarizing the Evolution debate"... and I do not accept their argument.
The Creationists are wrong about that because:
(1) Hitchens (like Gore) is not a scientist. You can not draw any conclusions about the validity of a scientific theory on the basis of the statements of non-scientists.
(2) It doesn't matter how Hitchens said what he said. We are all responsible for deciding what we believe. Responsible people ignore the polarization and examine the arguments logically. Idiots blame their dismissal of science on "the other guy" for not being nice.

If I wouldn't accept the "that guy polarized the debate" argument from Creationists; why would I accept it from you?

Nope. Mann's work, just like every other scientist on the planet, should be judged on the basis of what he has published.
We all know why ATI wanted access to Mann's emails: So that they could cherry-pick some juicy out of context quote to smear Mann with.

The AC reply to your comment points out this study was conducted with people ranging in age from 18 to 77 (same results) ... but isn't it interesting that you read the results of one study and you knee-jerk to complaining about "the kids these days"?
Since your core premise is wrong the rest of your comment reveals a lot about who you are:
It tells me (1) that you are very judgmental, and (2) that your misconceptions about the young are protected by a strong confirmation bias.
How else could you fail to notice that this wasn't just about young people?

geekoid's comments are usually quite good; insightful and frequently accompanied with evidence & sources.
It looks like geekoid just misread the comment that he/she is replying to. Happens to the best of us.

The people who say that are just making up excuses to dismiss the conclusions of scientific research.
In that way they're no different than Creationists who claim that Evolution is "just some secular hoax to fool the faithful".

... And they don't even consistently apply their "government money" argument: You never hear them make those sorts of complaints about the results from the LHC (that costed about ~$9billion split across many nations).

What's wrong with funding for programs that teach girls how to code? Do you read what you write before you press submit?

I read the headline and knew right then that somebody would find a way to turn this good news into something to complain about.

Replying to undo accidental mod.

... because we are also told "the cure for bad speech is more speech".
When a troll posts misinformation (especially those long debunked arguments) I think the people who reply are not attempting to convince the troll (trolls can't be convinced):
They're trying to persuade the reasonable readers with facts and better information.

Agreed.
Here's what happens to me occasionally when doing a "fetch quest" in a video game: I can't find the last item needed to complete the quest. I got all the others, but the last one is hidden away somewhere and I can't move the game forward a single inch until I find that very last one.
So I ask myself "What rooms haven't I been in?", "What doors haven't I opened?", "What box/crate/container haven't I looked in?" etc.
... and off I go exhaustively searching for that very. last. one.

I would hate to have to go searching through hundreds of mundane "template rooms" & closets that contain nothing of interest.