Bret Stephens: Climategate: Follow the Money - WSJ.com

Why did the money pour in so quickly? Because the climate alarm kept ringing so loudly: The louder the alarm, the greater the sums. And who better to ring it than people like Mr. Jones, one of its likeliest beneficiaries?
...
In one of the more telling disclosures from last week, a computer programmer writes of the CRU's temperature database: "I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seems to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. . . . Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight. . . . We can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!"

This is not the sound of settled science, but of a cracking empirical foundation. And however many billion-dollar edifices may be built on it, sooner or later it is bound to crumble.

Obnoxio The Clown: #Climategate - following the money

Well, given the normal rent-seeking practices of big business, it should come as no surprise that "big oil" are doing their best to climb on the "green" bandwagon, because it's much, much easier to steal taxpayers' money via some incompetent government functionary than it is to bother with all that nasty drilling and processing and transporting crap. So it wouldn't surprise me in the least if people arguing in favour of man-made global warming or anthropogenic climate change or whatever the f*ck it's called nowadays were even more in the pocket of "big oil" than the skeptics ever were.

Cattleman in no mood for compromise on emissions trading scheme | The Australian

"Abbott is quite right, it's simply a tax on production. A lot of farmers out here agree with him," Mr Baker said.
...
"How am I supposed to tell my cows to stop farting? My farm is always going to emit greenhouse gases."

The Migrant Mind: Trees Can't Hide the Decline

It is clear that everyone running these reconstructions knew of the scheme to hide the decline and they all participated in it. This is truly and ugly and sad time for science, which depends upon trust.

The truly interesting question is, if the climatologists believe the trees as a proxy for temperature for 1000 years, why disbelieve them in the last 40 years?