Good source on 'climategate', and CRU did not fudge

Found a good discussion on the climate change emails etc. Apparently I and others have been too quick to accept charges that CRU 'fudged' their chart. Actually they understated the case!

This is a good discussion of many of the points in 'climategate', from several different positions. Good number of well informed posts, all concise and readable.

Here's one sample from

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/febrile_nitwits_and_the_hacked.php#commentsArea

Posted by: Ed Darrell | December 5, 2009 3:58 PM

They didn't try to "fudge" any data. [....] In an attempt to list several lines of concurring data on a chart, there's a difficulty with the tree-ring stuff. After about 1960 it shows temperatures declining. Now, there were thermometers in 1960, and every year since, and so we know what the the temperatures were.

Temperatures actually rose after 1960. [....] So, rather than post known-to-be-incorrect data, they "fudged" by substituting in actual temperature measurements. You know, the accurate, known stuff.

Here's the funny part: The resulting chart, with the "fudged" data, [....] showed global warming to be less serious than it really is.