When Science meets politics and likes it - update on Climategate

This week's round-up of interesting commentaries:

• Professor Judith Curry's lucid commentaries on the dotearth and ClimateAudit blogs
• Janet D. Stemwedel nails down the relevant ethical implications of the case - she elegantly avoids politically contentious issues
  
• The Curmudgeon is not happy about the vindication of the creationists (great read)
• Phil at Andrew Gelman's blog is surprised at how scientists buy the skeptic arguments (his analogy was not appropriate, but this was fixed in the comments)
  
• Daniel Henninger talks about the danger of allowing for a postmodernist politicization of Science
• Andrew Revkin shows that the "contrarians-deniers-skeptics" are not alone in having too many strings attached (here, here, and here you can see examples supporting this view)
• Chris Mooney and Matthew C. Nisbet seem to be outraged that the "contrarians-deniers-skeptics" dared to frame Climategate. And they thought that they had a monopoly on this rhetoric trick... to make things worse, they try to fix it by reframing it as a dispute between left and right wings. This name-calling always work against reason (in this case, science).
• Gavin Baker points that the solution to many of these issues relies on Open Access.

update 2009.12.14: I just realized that Andrew Gelman is not the only one to write on his blog, some posts are written by a mysterious "Phil". I corrected the entry.