Open Letter to the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences?

The open letter to Archbishop Vincent Nichols, Westminster Cathedral, from R.C.E. Wyndham, which could also be directed to the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, states in expressive wording:

• To those who come to “Climate Change” with open eyes (not to mention open minds), it merely constitutes a trend - as unmistakeable as tracks in the snow, the cupidity and mendacity of politicians, the poltroonery of establishment scientists and their journalistic lapdogs or the catastrophist phantasmagoria of anthropogenic global warming pseudo-environmentalists.
• Furthermore, the perception is strengthened to the point of absolute confirmation by the predictions of dissenting mavericks. These renegades, unashamed in the face of understandable vexation and vilification from practitioners of orthodox purity, obdurately persist in pursuing rigorous, replicable science. This, naturally, is an outrage, which one would not hesitate to condemn save for one small but inconvenient circumstance. They make a furtive and disreputable virtue of repeatedly being right!
• Then - to use the inevitable cliché - we have Climategate. And, dare it be said, for those such as yourself, in the vanguard of so called “faith communities”, who arrogate to themselves the role of moral leadership, this gives rise to serious questions, does it not?
• Indeed, in many ways, "Climategate" is less about the "science" - which anyway is garbage - than it is about the integrity of the scientific process, an issue of immensely greater ethical significance for all who value truth as well as democratic accountability. AGW science has been exposed as a fraud, by far the gravest in the entire history of science.
• The AGW hypothesis itself is no better than a glib and distorted misrepresentation of a 100 year old speculation relating to the so-called Greenhouse Effect allied to invented evidence concocted within the guts of a computer by individuals with a predetermined agenda coupled with huge personal vested interests - financial and otherwise.
• We now know unequivocally that not just the notorious Mann, Bradley Hughes hockey stick, beloved of AGW propagandists, is a worthless contrivance, but even the very temperature record itself is largely a fiction - maybe entirely.
  

If the Royal Swedish Academy read the letter, what would the response be? That Wyndham's analysis is obviously nonsense, even if eloquently expressed, and that the Royal Swedish Academy has no reason whatsoever to revise its statement of full support of the science and standards of IPCC and its Hockey Team? That Climategate did not happen?

But maybe in fact Climategate did happen and so redefines the meaning of peer-review:

• The global-warming establishment’s futile attempt to resist pressure from an opposing, grassroots collective caused a shift to occur – displaying a process known in certain scientific circles as self-organization. The new order that has emerged has placed a new definition on the label peer — that of an amorphous group of intelligent online observers, detached from the outcome, with an extremely solid grasp on the topic at hand.
• In a case where politics comes into play, it appears that this review process is much more rigorous – it ostensibly sanitizes the outcome from the affects of interested parties. This is the point that one must take from Climategate.
• We no longer live in an age where a system can be entirely controlled. Information lacks the protective coat that it once had – bureaucracies can be infiltrated and cracked, and access to broadcast tools are pervasive. When a system is no longer operating correctly, pressures mount, causing an inevitable instability.
• And when the hands of Big Government play a part in molding the consensus, or in this case Big Global Government, the peer-to-peer review network and the undermedia will play the unavoidable role of getting to the truth – a truth desperately needed when crafting policy that will affect every living human and their offspring.
• The Times’ Thomas Friedman recently stated, “The internet is an open sore of untreated, unfiltered information.” There is much truth in his statement. But when taken in context, it is spoken like a true gatekeeper. The quotecame in response to how the undermedia exposed controversial information on former green jobs czar Van Jones. Climategate was indeed an open sore – but it could only be seen on the internet, through the window of a tiny blog called the Air Vent, and treated by Steven Mosher, Steve McIntyre, and others through a new process called peer-to-peer review.
• So take heed gatekeepers. The Undermedia has arrived. Peer-to-peer review has matured. Either operate effectively, or be self-organized out of existence.

To get updated the Royal Academy could watch John Coleman's: Global Warming: The Other Side. Or read Global Warmists Feel a Chilly Wind by Tom Bethell. And contemplate the deliberate exaggeration of warming reported by CRU and NOAA. But maybe The Royals only read IPCC reports.