For those who speak German, here today's article in spiegel-online (a really influential online publication in Germany) 'Schmelzendes Vertrauen'':
You can bet that the author reads Klimazwiebel and Pielke jr.'s blog. It is interesting that all the different elements such as the hockey stick debate, climategate, the Pachauri business and Himalaya glaciers add up to a consistent (skeptical) narrative. At least for the Spiegel journalist, with Pielke jr. and Hans von Storch as his principal witnesses.
Maybe there is indeed a pattern, maybe there is not. The Spiegel story suggests there is. Great day for the skeptics, I guess. Once these diverse elements are formed into a consistent narrative, the story becomes part of the public debate and produces new realities. At least media realities, with lots of consequences in politics and public opinion. Some of these consequences might be intended by the combatants, others not. (And in the end everybody in the science community will agree that the media didn't get it right).
Maybe it is time to step back for a moment and to reflect - what is this all about? Is it just another episode in the endless soap opera between skeptics and alarmists (this round goes to the skeptics)? Is it about purifying climate science (and peer review) from outside influences? Is it about career patterns and political influence? Is it about 'truth'? And, by the way, is it still about climate and its effects on people and their environment etc? I do not suggest that these debates are unnecessary, quite the contrary. But blogs tend to drown in mutual accusations, mutual debunking, personal accusations etc, with sometimes unintended consequences. The spiegel online story is a good test: is this indeed what you wanted? If so, it's fine. If not, don't blame the media.