Its also good to point out that the fraud was in the review process, not the work itself. So the tools that did it were extra stupid in their laziness.
If they didn't do the peer review, it's probably because the work wouldn't survive it.
That doesn't account for laziness. We don't know if the work itself was bad. I'm suspicious it might be, but it needs reviewed properly.
Climate models are huge and complex, only a few people can truly claim to understand them. They're not lab experiments where you can easily isolate causes and exclude other factors or extrapolate how the ecosystem will respond. There's huge local variations in climate that people use as proof or counter-proof because this year was particularly cold or warm without any validity as a global phenomenon.
Deniers often do claim that the weather outside their window is enough data to refute AGW. I have no doubt that they might have a little problem understanding the modes and the data.
But you and I both know that isn't the real issue. I don't hear anything about radioactivity not being real, and that nucs are some other process is involved. its just accepted. We don't hear much about cosmology, even though it isn't remotely as settled as the greenhouse effect, and there are some pretty active controversies going on, and not many people understand it.
Its money, and who's ox is gored, and who is getting paid for their vote, and inertia, and how somehow the laws of physics has become affiliated with a political party or not. Where once upon a time, not many years ago, the greenhouse effect was believed by most, and how now, scientists are scrambling to save climate data before it is destroyed http://www.businessinsider.com... Who knew that in 21st Century America, that science could become illegal?
That said, just because there's a lot of detail we're working on doesn't mean there's much doubt about the big picture. Take evolution for example, we're still doing tons of research into the exact mechanisms that create and divide species but there's no real scientific competition from creationism or lamarckism that genetics isn't real. "Survival of the fittest" does work as a one-liner summary.
The greenhouse effect is clearly real, if Earth had no atmosphere it would have a surface temperature of -18C instead of +14C.
And yet, people will differ http://www.energycentral.com/c... http://blog.nosuchthingasgreen...
So when they're talking about trying to keep the temperature change because of human activity under 2C we're really talking about a <10% change in the effect. We are just a small part of a pretty big puzzle of how this all works.
It is small in some respects, rather large in others. In addition, there are some wild cards such as methane released by warming: http://www.natureworldnews.com...