This ended up being longer than I expected. There are Six sections with some overlap.

1. Response to the YouTube criticism of "the trick"
2. ClimateGate
3. American Physical Society
4. CO2
5. The Sun
6. Sources

--- Response to YouTube ---
First of all let me direct you to one response about the "trick" discussed on the YouTube you submitted.

Here is a much more detailed analysis of the "trick".

But I think the YouTube presentation made a very good point that it is silly to focus on only two items out of the many emails and files. He was correct to ridicule the critics for trying to take an easy shot.

The "trick" had also been used to overcome McIntyre's objection to the "hockey stick" graph by using ONE TREE from siberia because it had the temperature profile that they were after.

--- ClimateGate ---
I am intrigued by a little history about the CRU (from which we get the ClimateGate files). 

CRU was founded in 1972 by the 'Father of Climatology', former Met Office meteorologist Hubert Lamb.
. . .
Lamb (who died in 1997), however remained sceptical of the greenhouse gas hypothesis to the end.

In the first IPCC report in 1990 they used Lamb's temperature graph, which showed a Medieval Warm Period, but by 2001 Jones and team had created a graph without the Medieval Warm Period (which is much warmer than now) and replaced it with the infamous "hockey stick" graph.

There are of course other references Ref1, Ref2 that talk in more detail about the trick and the program that was used to create the artificial hockey stick graph.

Interestingly there is clear evidence that this was not a hacker that downloaded all the information for Climategate, it was a whistleblower. 

One of the significant finds of ClimateGate are the emails which talk about ways to avoid meeting the demands of the FOIA request.

Another interesting file in the release is a file name HARRY_Read_Me.txt which outlines how it is extremely difficult to make a reasonable set of climate results from the files available.

Because of ClimateGate, now Science is on Trial.

Detailed analysis of ClimateGate by Lord Monckton's group

--- American Physical Society --
A good article from the Wall Street Journal, Climate Science Isn't Settled by Dr. Lindzen a professor at MIT.

ClimateGate has gotten the attention of the members of the American Physical Society and they are very concerned. 

Here are two letters that were recently circulated to their members.
Dear fellow member of the American Physical Society:
This is a matter of great importance to the integrity of the Society. It is being sent to a random fraction of the membership, so we hope you will pass it on.
By now everyone has heard of what has come to be known as ClimateGate, which was and is an international scientific fraud, the worst any of us have seen in our cumulative 223 years of APS membership. For those who have missed the news we recommend the excellent summary article by Richard Lindzen in the November 30 edition of the Wall Street journal, entitled "The Climate Science isn't Settled," for a balanced account of the situation. It was written by a scientist of unquestioned authority and integrity. A copy can be found among the items at, and a visit to can fill in the details of the scandal, while adding spice.

What has this to do with APS? In 2007 the APS Council adopted a Statement on global warming (also reproduced at the tinyurl site mentioned above) that was based largely on the scientific work that is now revealed to have been corrupted. (The principals in this escapade have not denied what they did, but have sought to dismiss it by saying that it is normal practice among scientists. You know and we know that that is simply untrue. Physicists are not expected to cheat.)

We have asked the APS management to put the 2007 Statement on ice until the extent to which it is tainted can be determined, but that has not been done. We have also asked that the membership be consulted on this point, but that too has not been done.
None of us would use corrupted science in our own work, nor would we sign off on a thesis by a student who did so. This is not only a matter of science, it is a matter of integrity, and the integrity of the APS is now at stake. That is why we are taking the unusual step of communicating directly with at least a fraction of the membership.
If you believe that the APS should withdraw a Policy Statement that is based on admittedly corrupted science, and should then undertake to clarify the real state of the art in the best tradition of a learned society, please send a note to the incoming President of the APS, with the single word YES in the subject line. That will make it easier for him to count.
Bob Austin, Professor of Physics, Princeton
Hal Lewis, emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara
Will Happer, Professor of Physics, Princeton
Larry Gould, Professor of Physics, Hartford
Roger Cohen, former Manager, Strategic Planning, ExxonMobil

> Dear Signatory,
> This note is to update you on recent developments.
> On December 4 and 5, we sent the attached email message to a large
> random sample of APS members.  The purpose of the message was to
> engage a large cross section of members to insist on the APS
> withdrawing its current (2007) statement on climate change, pending
> an independent scientific study and assessment per our petition
> (attached list of 235 signatures).    We also wanted to gauge the
> broader sentiment in the membership community.  Because of this,
> signatories were not addressed directly, although several did
> receive the message on a simple random basis.
> As near as we can tell from the response, roughly half of the
> responding members supported the call for the withdrawal of the 2007
> statement.  Thus, we can state with supportive evidence that there
> is a significant basis of support for withdrawal.   Subsequent to
> the emailing, APS leadership took exception to the process of
> engaging the membership and notified all members of its position on
> the matter.   This morning I sent APS President Murray and President-
> elect Callan the attached note which explains problems with the
> current APS course and offers discussions to try to resolve the
> disagreement.   Since the ‘measurement phase’ of this initiative is
> completed, signatories can feel free to express their own sentiments
> to Murray and Callan, as several have done already.
> Also in the past few days, we have been contacted by a Congressional
> staffer for a Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and
> Government Reform who is very interested in the petition.  We have
> provided information and she is in turn in contact with other House
> members and selected Senators.   It is too early to say what effect
> if any this will have on the scientific or political process.
> Finally for your information the following pieces have been posted
> by CBS News online:
> In summary it appears that the petition initiative is being noticed
> and gaining momentum.  However, there has been no further progress
> toward the goal of moderating the APS stance.  We anticipate a
> protracted process.
> The progress and attention we have gained to date would not have
> been possible without your support.  It demonstrates the power of
> cooperative phenomena.
> Best regards,
> Roger

--- CO2 ---

The answer to the key question about the effects of increased CO2 vs. temperature was answered by an article published in July 2009 by Lindzen & Choi in a peer reviewed journal. It turns out that increased CO2 does NOT hold more heat.
Dr. Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940, Webster, Massachusetts) is an American atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor ofMeteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

The scientific paper by Lindzen and Choi can be found here.

A more understandable discussion can be found here, or here 

Here is the essentials, the real measured data shows the OPPOSITE effect, than what is used in all the IPCC models.
The mismatch between reality and prediction is entirely clear. It is this
astonishing graph that provides the final evidence that the UN has
absurdly exaggerated the effect not only of CO2 but of all greenhouse
gases on global mean surface temperature. -
 Lindzen & Choi (2009).

--- The Sun ---
There is a strong correlation between the period of sunspots and the earth's temperature.

Here is some interesting information about the sun. This 2007 article suggests that we are entering a new ice age. His information is based on the activity of the sun. Interestingly, what he was talking about in 2007 is even worse now. The next sunspot cycle was overdue at that time and IT STILL HASN'T STARTED.

Here is some information from NASA on the current Deep Solar Minimum. There are some interesting records in 2008:
1. A 50-year low in solar wind pressure
2. A 12-year low in solar "irradiance"
3. A 55-year low in solar radio emissions
4. "Modern technology cannot, however, predict what comes next." but many claims are made for the next cycle, and models are based on those predictions. 

Here is another very interesting graph of Sunspot Magnetism. They make a very interesting conclusion:
"Sunspot magnetic fields are dropping by about 50 gauss per year," says Penn. "If we extrapolate this trend into the future, sunspots could completely vanish around the year 2015." 

"Whether [the current downturn] is an omen of long-term sunspot decline, analogous to the Maunder Minimum, remains to be seen,"

Remember the Maunder Minimum coincided with the middle — and coldest part — of the Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America, and perhaps much of the rest of the world, were subjected to bitterly cold winters

--- Sources ---
Various News Sources