At The American: Opening a Can of Worms: Government and Climate Change Data, which examines the Administration's drive for Open Government in the context of the recent climate change science exposes.
Questions are also being raised about data underlying climate change work in the U.S. See, e.g.
Daniel Henninger has a fine column in the WSJ today making the point that the crisis is not just of climate change policy but of Science as an institution. For years, the proponents of drastic and economically painful actions have wrapped themselves in the toga of "science says," with little contradiction by the scientific community as a whole. Indeed, those scientists who have disagreed have been attacked vehemently.
I don't think most scientists appreciate what has hit them. This isn't only about the credibility of global warming. For years, global warming and its advocates have been the public face of hard science. Most people could not name three other subjects they would associate with the work of serious scientists. This was it. The public was told repeatedly that something called "the scientific community" had affirmed the science beneath this inquiry. A Nobel Prize was bestowed (on a politician).
Global warming enlisted the collective reputation of science. Because "science" said so, all the world was about to undertake a vast reordering of human behavior at almost unimaginable financial cost.
So it appears that important data was lost, analytic methodologies corrupted, and the enterprise turned to political ends -- without a peep from all but a few members of the scientific community.
That community better push hard for the U.S. government to open everything up so it can self-correct.
The WSJ also ran a poll asking readers if they believe in human-caused climate change. The vote was 9-1 against. Granted, WSJ's readers are a conservative lot, but they are also well-informed, and that split is incredible.