[ThunderSleeps]

...while the controversy has receded, it may have done lasting damage to science's reputation: Last month, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 40 percent of Americans distrust what scientists say about the environment, a considerable increase from April 2007. Meanwhile, public belief in the science of global warming is in decline.

Typical liberal slant and refusal to accept responsibility or assign accountability when it goes against them. The "controversy" hasn't done damage to the so-called scientist's reputation. The controversy is a result of the scientists' actions. It is their actions that have damaged their reputations.

The central lesson of Climategate is not that climate science is corrupt.

Ah, yes, it is.

The leaked e-mails do nothing to disprove the scientific consensus on global warming.

Wrong on two counts. First, there is no consensus on global warming, there is plenty of dissent. Second, the emails show just how right the dissenters and non-believers are.

[lasereye]

The central lesson of Climategate is not that climate science is corrupt.

Ah, yes, it is.

Science is not corrupt. That's just a method for determining natural laws. Scientists are corrupt.

[ColdWater]

Ah, yes, it is.

No. The science is not corrupt. It is the politicians.