If you think that "climategate" throws much doubt on the main claims of anthropogenic global warming, then either you've been misinformed about what's in the em

If you think that "climategate" throws much doubt on the main claims of anthropogenic global warming, then either you've been misinformed about what's in the emails or I have. (I think the "climategate" emails establish that some climate scientists aren't very nice people sometimes, that some software written by research scientists is a bit of a mess, and that if you cherry-pick the worst-sounding bits from hundreds of emails you can make things sound worse than they really are. Not much more than that.) I don't understand. Friel hasn't been particularly associated with global warming in the past; why would he be writing a book like this as "a desperate attempt at staying relevant"? Lomborg gets plenty of attention for his work. If, as Friel claims, it's full of dishonest pseudo-scholarship, isn't that worth drawing attention to?