Now a Bishop Hill has posted an easily understood explanation of the hockey stick story and his version of events is enabling many non-experts to appreciate have devastating the work done over at Climate Audit has been to the claims of scientific veracity in support of AGW.
In 2007 Climate Audit was recognized with an award as the best science blog. In 2008, it has continued to provide high quality discussion, exposure of errors and a perspective on excellence in scientific practice.
The Hockey Stick controversy also can be seen as systemic of a wider problem within the climate debate and, by extension, the whole area of environmentalism: an over-reliance upon peer review as a metric.
Which, in turn, reflects an even wider trend: reliance upon authority as indicated by credentials of their education, rather than the substance of their intellect.
There also is this very useful posting on Prometheus that puts the debate into the context of scince and policy.