Bazz,
What is deeply revealing is that when this story first broke, and some of us (modest, far-seeing types) suggested there should be a re-evaluation of the findings of those implicated. The response of most of our resident AGW faithful was to cry it all a beat-up, and to heap scorn on the skeptics who were trying to “hijack” their roadshow.

However, now East Anglica has apparently itself decided on a inquiry , the same people are saying it's right proper to do so.

The irony hangs over it like a London fog : the persons who claim sooo loudly to represent –science-- being sooo influenced by someone’s title or affiliations—not too far removed from, "its true because the witchdoctor said so".
OR ( Milgate-esque) "I must do it because the man in the white coat told me to turn the lever high and inflict the maximum pain"

Horus;
The UN itself is now going to investigate the CRU's operations.
They have to, it is at the fundamental basis of their policy.
The middle ages warm period is at the heart of it all.
If it was warmer then than it is now, as seems likely as Mann's work
seems suspect, then the whole theory is at risk.
That is the basis of the Copenhagen talks.
It is all now on very shakey grounds and as a taxpayer I think the
government should stop spending money on it till the various enquiries
are finished.
From what I have read these are the enquiries in process;

Uni of East Anglia
Uni of Pennslyvania
United Nations
United States Senate
New Zealand Government.
UK Police ?
A complaint has been laid re fraud & Freedom of Information Act.

Phillip Jones has stood down to allow the UEA enquiry to proceed.
It seems to me that there is a prima facia case.
That does not mean the police will act.

I just don't see how anyone can say that the AGW science is not compromised.

There's also now pressure on NASA to release data which they have refused to do. They've been given to the end of he year or face being sued.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/researcher-says-nasa-hiding-climate-data/

Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and would explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data going as far back as the 1930s.

"I assume that what is there is highly damaging," Mr. Horner said. "These guys are quite clearly bound and determined not to reveal their internal discussions about this."

The numbers matter. Under pressure in 2007, NASA recalculated its data and found that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in its records for the contiguous 48 states. NASA later changed that data again, and now 1998 and 2006 are tied for first, with 1934 slightly cooler.

First the Suadis express doubts and now the Danish parliament Speaher says AGW believers are gullible.

http://politiken.dk/newsinenglish/article851820.ece

Not a good start

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I find it remarkable that people argue about an ETS or not rather then to ask where is the constitutional powers in the first place for an ETS legislation!
The commonwealth was specifically denied legislative powers as to environment.
.
the commonwealth has legislative powers as to taxation for the purpose of raising revenue and not by backdoor manner trying to legislate as to environment.
.
HANSARD 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-I did not say that it took place under this clause, and the honorable member is quite right in saying that it took place under the next clause; but I am trying to point out that laws would be valid if they had one motive, while they would be invalid if they had another motive.
END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. GORDON.- The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the Constitution we will have to wipe it out."
END QUOTE
.
Let me ask again where is the constitutional powers for the Federal government to legislate for an ETS?
.
It isn’t in the constitution, and neither for example any legislative powers to declare/define the nationality of a child born in the Commonwealth of Australia, etc.
.
Neither any legislative powers to turn the Commonwealth into some republic as Section 128 referendum cannot achieve this!
.
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).-
The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it is expedient to make provision for the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth. That is, for admission into this political Union, which is not a republic, which is not to be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union by the name of "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree.
END QUOTE
.