Seeing the environmental forest

It's hard to believe that anyone at this point takes the so-called Climategate seriously.  Yet I have encountered several individuals recently who appear to sincerely believe that Climategate was a real scandal that somehow disproves all the scientific evidence for climate change/global warming accumulated over the past 150+ years.

John Steele Gordon published a commentary in The Wall Street Journal on July 30 that, on its face, sounds reasonable.  Gordon makes the case that we should be cautious about calling climate science settled as science is always changing.  No real quibbles there, as science has shown that nothing is ever truly "settled" science.  Unfortunately, that's as close to reality as Gordon comes.  The rest of the commentary simply shows off Gordon's simplistic view of history, science, and, especially, the current state of climate science.

In case you missed it, the original comments I'm answering are found at the end of my bibliography of hockey sticks found here .  Part 1 of my response is here .  Now on to the second comment .

Apparently my post listing 36 publications that all show a "hockey-stick" has attracted some attention, including from a self-proclaimed paleogeneticist who claims that he's an expert in climate models .  I'm putting my response here, as responding to the Gish Gallop of BS he wrote would take far too much space in the comments section of that post.  If he doesn't like it?  Too bad.