Trust and the climategate scandal

Sager I reach the bottom of e-mail scandal ClimateGate with this line (and the rest of his post). More than anything, the emails reveal that climate science has thus been addressed, and how climate change in general has been discussed in the scientific community, not the path we must address an issue with political implications mass. Entire economies have been structured around the premise that anthropogenic global warming, and without greater transparency, we are putting our faith and money in the hands of a group of scientists who may or may not have earned our trust. We do not know.
Another problem I see is that the consensus on global warming is not only about the problem, but about the solution. In other words, you can not believe in man-made global warming and still disagree with the cap and trade or other widely accepted "solutions" to the problem without being kicked out of the discussion as little better than deniers a " . But there are other solutions, such as geo-engineering, which are legitimate alternatives. These are almost out of bounds, however, as illustrated by the cacophony surrounding the launch of Super Freakonomics, a book that includes a chapter on this very thing.
Is global warming a new secular religion? Not really, but it is getting more and more as people demand more faith in it and correct any skepticism about the matter and, faith, well, bad.