Try this article to start. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html
"Climategate" investigated 8 times and all investigations concluded that generally, there was no wrongdoing. Some of them seemed to have minor issues with scientists' willingness to share computer files a specific graph within their report. But overall there was nothing wrong with their conclusions, and data was not inappropriately manipulated. Here's the Wikipedia list of all the investigations; you can follow the links there for more information.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Inquiries_and_reportsScientists in the 70's were sure a new ice age was coming. It was settled and of course it was all man's fault. What happened to that?
That was never scientific consensus. That was a minority position that got a lot of attention in a couple magazine articles, but research still supported warming over cooling.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#113b1444171b
Just in case you didn't click the article here is the opening: "Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem."
I haven't seen that quoted before, but here's my initial take after a few minutes of Googling and skimming some of the journal article:
- The sample may be problematic. Geoscientists and engineers may be scientists, but they're not climate scientists there is no reason to consider them to be authorities on climate change. It's the same thing as surveying chemists about evolution, and then using it as evidence that biologists are wrong.
- Additionally, the sample was made up of members of the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGA), whose members often work in the petroleum industry. There's an obvious conflict of interest here--if you survey tobacco CEOs they're going to tell you smoking doesn't cause cancer. And if you survey people deep enough in the petroleum industry that they join a professional association of petroleum workers, they're going to tell you their products aren't warming the earth.
- The journal is called "Organizational Studies." That journal is dedicated to studying how organizations work. It focuses on social science, not climate science. Without reading the full article, I'm not even sure that it was intended to take a position on climate change--it fits the journal better if it's an attempt to document how APEGA members understand climate change.
- The Forbes article you linked and quoted was an opinion piece in a publication that focuses primarily on business news. I don't think that author's interpretation has much relevance to the climate change debate.