Do you seriously place as little faith in climate scientists as you would in an astrologer?
Obviously it's not as mature a field as, say, medicine, but refusing to believe that any of the results are at all valid is just being wilfully ignorant.
No, but it should illustrate the point. If the only people who can validate the work of an X are fellow X's, then X's are either specialists or frauds.
The idea isn't that only a doctor can evaluate a doctor's performance, but that you need a doctor to explain why the other doctor may have done what he did. Without this expert opinion, no conclusions that you can try to draw from it as a non-doctor hold any weight.
i.e. Get some climate scientists to weight in on this and evaluate what they have to say on it rather than just looking at some of the evidence on your own and drawing your own conclusions.
I'm not saying to have a climate scientist give you a 'yes/no' answer to "Is this a fruad?" and then blindly trust their answer. I'm saying that someone in the field of climatology should be able to explain some of this away in a reasoned and understandable manner with facts that can be verified if this isn't some sort of fraud.
Declaring something a fraud by looking at snippets of emails and comments from source files out of context is not the way of rational debate. I highly doubt that you or many of the people rushing to label this as "100% of everything said about Global Warming since the beginning of time is now false" have done more than read snippets from blog posts.
