(not an original moniker in the title, someone remind me where it came from so I can give credit where credit is due!)
While I think the approriate response to ClimateGate 2.0 is to ignore it, I also think the mainstream media is doing mostly just that so it is safer to bring your attention to this good rebuttal to the whole affair from potholer54 on YouTube:
I think the most telling quote echoing around the denialosphere right now is this one from Jonathan Overpeck:
The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid what's included and what is left out.
It's supposed to reveal evil scientists twisting their research and data to support some preconceived message, "presumably global warming is scary, give us lots of grant money." But look what happens when you put in a tiny bit of context:
I think the hardest, yet most important part, is to boil the section down to 0.5 pages. In looking over your good outline, [...] you cover ALOT. The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid what's included and what is left out.
Reality can be so boring....
(note the misspelling of "guide" that may frustrate text searches, like mine just now! So, for The Google: "The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what's included and what is left out". Now at least one relevant page will be returned!)