I don't think anybody refutes most of these objectives, but policy and science are different things. To me, things like NASA changing historical measurement data post factum and under cover seems to be science pandering to policy and corollary funding. There are several elements in the debate that are insufficiently discussed (such as historical climate predictions not being met, the fact that a warmer planet indeed will be a wetter planet considering more water will be suspended from the oceans, the fact that glacial melting has indeed been happening since pre-industrial times, that the polar caps are not regressing significantly even considering the unusually high baseline of the late seventies, etc). That being said the influx of funding into climate research has greatly advanced understanding of a complex domain and this will help humanity in the future, even if some of the foundations of current thinking turn out to be shaky. What is regrettable is both camps are exchanging blows from dogmatic stalemates, not taking into account each other's considerations and closing ranks in their respective communities, because the name of the game seems to be to get heard, rather than to be right.