For years, I have been telling anyone that would listen that the global warming models are horrific. I have first hand knowledge of such modeling from my bygone days as an engineer, where similar models are used to predict behaviors of structures and materials and very complex systems. Such models are totally reliant on "boundary conditions" which are a series of assumptions that are made to define the environment in which you are modeling. Long explanation made short, if your boundary conditions are wrong, your model will never be able to correctly predict behavior. If your measured data is hosed, you can never check the accuracy of your model.
There is an easy check to see if you are in the ballpark with a model. If the element you are modeling actually behaves in the real world in the way the model predicts (say a structure under load and the stresses and deflections you measure during tests), you can have decent confidence level that your model can be used to predict other non-tested situations.
Moving on to global warming. The climatologists use the historical data to provide insights into the boundary conditions that are inputted into the model, then use the data again to check and see if you are modeling reality. Fudging the data changes the boundary conditions and the milestones that are needed to check the accuracy of the model. You can now see why corrupting the data, which the CRU scandal is exposing, has a twofer affect on the accuracy of the model.
Once you have created a climate model, running it allows the predictions of the model to be checked against past historical climate data. I have challenged several people to point me to one study where any of the dozen or so commonly used climate models accurately represents PAST behavior. Reiterating, not a single model I know of currently being used predicts the PAST, which has, and correct me if I'm wrong here, already happened. This being the case, the model doesn't have a chance in the world of being used to confidently predict the FUTURE.
So CRU is fudging the numbers being used to create a model, then fudging the numbers (again?) trying to show the models they use are accurate. Being kind, these people show a considerable lack of judgement, honesty and integrity. And let's not even go into their heavy-handed attempts to marginalize anyone bold enough to question their behavior.
One final thought; a comment I use to frustrate global warming fanatics. What is the perfect climate you are trying to create, and why? Who is to say that the climate of today is better or worse than that of the Jurassic era (where life flourished), or the Ice Age (where Homo Sapiens really took off), or whenever? Perhaps the climate is changing (questionable though that assumption may be) to be even more beneficial to mankind that it currently is. I can never understand the God-like understanding these people think they have.
The bottom line is I think these people, through their own arrogance, ignorance or political agenda, are simply trying to impose their view on others in the typical elitist manner always used by the left. I further think that they are really trying to achieve perfect weather and have no clue what they are talking about when it comes to climate. I suggest they move to San Diego.