Climategate: AGW Propagandists vs AGW skeptics, why is the MSM silent?

It should be known as "climategate" and should be a front-page story in every newspaper worth the name and the lead item on television and radio news throughout the world.
Instead it has generally been ignored and often deliberately covered up.
The story is, quite simply, extraordinary.
In brief, it concerns the admittedly illegal but startlingly important hacking of the e-mail system of one of the world's leading climate research units at Britain's University of East Anglia.-Michael Coren Hot Air November 28,2009

Climate email hackers had access for more than a month

The university declined to answer questions about the setup and security of the computers used by CRU scientists, but security experts say there are only three tenable explanations for how the server was hacked: a determined break-in by an external hacker; that one of the CRU or university systems was accidentally "compromised" by a computer virus or other "malware"; or it was an "inside job" by a disaffected member of university staff. The latter is viewed as the least likely
An online poster called Crompton wrote the following:
Let me see, there is prima facie evidence in these e-mails of:
1. Manipulation of data to make the late 20th Century temperaturese seem unusually higher than the previous millenium;
2. That the CRU was trying to deny access to its data and was prepared to destroy it rather than give it to McIntyre.
3. That Prof. Jones exhorted people to destroy emails which would be part of an FOI request;
4. That Prof Jones and Kevin (presumably Trenberth) were prepared to change the peer review process rather than let contrarian papers be submitted to the IPCC;
5. That Dr. Mann and Prof Jones were complicit in getting the editor of a scientific journal sacked for publishing contrarian science;
6. That they tried to silence different views in the media by using their relationships with Richard Black of the BBC, successfully from what I can see, and Andy Revkin of the NYT.
And the response from warmists:
"The hackers evidently put in a lot of effort for utterly trivial results."
"No comments? Looks like even the most paranoid deniers have give up on Climategate. All smoke and no gun."
"storm in a tea cup"
"Sadly not so trivial, since the reckless deniers and feckless sceptics now think their case is proved and so does the "man in the street" (always easily persuaded that what he wants to be is so)."
And my favorite, a perfect example of the warmists approach to truth and science:
"Heard "fatty" Lawson on Radio 4 this week claiming he wasn't a global warming skeptic; he's right, he 'isn't a skeptic, he's a denier."

An online poster called Crompton wrote the following:
You seem convinced, I'm not, not by the way because I don't believe that CO2 isn't a GHG, nor do I deny that humans have been pumping CO2 in the atmosphere they have. My problem lies with the clear historical data that shows that temperature and CO2 have no clear relationship other than CO2 rising around 800 to 1200 years after a rise in temperature. Do you have any literature that shows a definitive explainable relationship between CO2 and temperature. The only relationship I can find is the Stefan-Boltzmann black box equation that gives a 0.5 to 1.2 rise in temperature for a doubling of the CO2 in the atmosphere.
Realclimae is political not a scientific site, which ruthlessly censors the posts, so what you're reading there is what they want you to read. Not a good source.
The MBH98 hockeystick was comprehensively rubbished by Dr. Wegman from the NAS, both in terms of the use of unpublished and non-peer reviewed statistical methods, and the use a network of peer reviewers who had previously written papers together. I can't see how you could deny this.
The most current hockeysticks we now know were proxy data mixed with instrumental data because the proxy data showed a downtick in temperature after 1960. It is fair to use the actual measured temperatures for sure, but the doubt cast on the proxies by the downtick should have made the scientists use the early proxies with great care, or preferably not at all because they are clearly not reliable. Either way not putting this vital piece of information in the literarure smacks of obfuscation at best.
A word to the wise Dr. Mann is inching away from the hockey stick, he now says that there was a MWP and that it may have been warmer than today, but that the Pacific was cool.
Dr Mann is nobody's fool, he sees that should the UAE emails get investigated there will be repurcussions because there's little doubt they are highly suspicious activities. The other hero of the greens, George Monbiot can also see the possible fall of the house of cards if these e-mails are investigated and has called for Phil Jones' head, presumably hoping the sacrifice of Prof. Jones will put an end to the matter.
We shall see.


Intro Part on Canadian Television ignored by the large news outlets (CTV, CBC, Global TV)



Part Two




Part Three




Part Four



Part Five