Since the beginning of the climate change story more than 20 years ago, it has been hard to sort out whether the IPCC represents the “best” science, or merely the findings most compatible with the politically driven climate policy agenda. Both sets of Climategate emails have lifted the lid on the insides of the process, and it isn’t pretty.

The Climategate controversy calls into question the data on human-caused global warming, and it highlights the detrimental effects of politicized scientific research.

The institution of science has no place for hiding data, shaping data to conform to pre-existing beliefs,undermining the peer-review process, or any other of the shady activities that the Hadley Center Climate Research Unit scientists allegedly engaged in.

The Climategate scandal erodes the credibility of both the scientists involved and the institution of scientific research.

The forlorn and increasingly desperate climate campaign achieved a new level of ineptitude last week when what had looked like a minor embarrassment for one of its critics​—​the Chicago-based Heartland Institute​—​turned out to be a full-fledged catastrophe for itself. A moment’s reflection on the root of this episode points to why the climate campaign is out of (greenhouse) gas.

How is the far right responding to the failed Copenhagen talks, and what role might moderates now play?

Media, university and corporate elites still profess belief in global warming alarmism, but moves toward policies limiting carbon emissions have fizzled out, here and abroad.

Greater polarization of the electorate, concerns about the economy, and skepticism of the media have led to a sharp decline in public opinion that climate change is a real and serious issue.