It is unfortunate that the signal to noise ratio on the skeptic side is low.
I have no problem with thinking skeptics. I think there should be more of them. But the problem is almost all the skeptics are fanatical mad dog skeptics with solid Ph.Ds in arcmchair climatology backed by B.S's in BS. It's become like evolution vs. intelligent design, only worse.
I think that the fanatic ones are not skeptics at all. They are mostly ignorant people with loud opinions. However, there is an equally big bunch of equally ignorant and loud environmentalists, who are equally bad. This Slashdot article is a prime example of the battle between those two ignorant camps. Way too much noise and partisan moderation. This whole debate should be about data and science and not about people. So we should ignore all the ignorant, loud ones no matter what their opinions are.
I believe, that it is unethical for you to just point out the low quality of those, who don't share your point of view.
I've read through a lot of material of that FOIA.zip. I have no degree in climatology, but I have 20 years of experience in computing and analyzing sensory data and data conversions. From what I've read, there are big problems with how the CRU tempareture data is processed. These problems affect the outcome. How much? Nobody knows, but we all should be interested in finding out.
I have no respect for those, who just repeat, that there's nothing here to see. These people have not read the material. They are just cheerleaders, who support their own team, no matter what. They add no value to the debate.