Remember the science wars in the nineties? Facts or fiction: on the one hand the scientists who defended scientific facts as objective and representations of truth; on the other hand interdisciplinary science studies (anthropology, sociology, cultural studies etc) arguing that scientific facts are relative, relational and constructed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_wars
Science with a capital S was not amused about science studies and insisted on the 'scientific fact' as not constructed but instead as being a mirror of reality. Even today, the natural sciences mostly accept their counterparts of the social sciences only in form of data gatherers for their models, or as translators of scientific findings to the public via the media; they still don't like the talk about the social construction of facts. But the virus lives on and has affected climate science from within. The hardcore climatologists insist that global warming is an indisputable 'scientific fact' and blame those who lay open the cultural construction of this truth and its inherent uncertainties.
The current debate about 'climategate' reflects this strange divide neatly: both the writers of the CRU emails and those blamed in these emails believe in global warming. The dispute is not about the reality of global warming; instead, it is about the nature of scientific facts. The group of alarmists (or the climate cartel, as HvStorch calls them) argues that the insistence on global warming as an indisputable fact is necessary in order to inform and advise politics in an effective way. In their opinion, the fact of global warming determines political action - 2 degrees limit, emission reduction, global agreement etc. The position that sees global warming as a more or less exact constructed fact avoids those one way conclusions and opens up diverse possibilities how to act such as regional strategies, adaptation measures, decarbonization strategies etc. Mostly, it is left to the politicians how to (re-)act. Both parties take a political stance; the hardcore climatologists resemble Stalinists (sometimes you have to lie to the people in order to make them do the right thing), while the constructivists resemble social democrats (political negotiation instead of war).
In any case, the contemporary science wars are not about the reality of global warming, but about climate politics and the role that science plays. It is about the hegemony in climate discourse, about science funding and power. There is no way back to a safe place beyond politics or society; instead, it is the other way round: there is only the choice of which science, which society and which politics you want in times of climate change.