...to link to Willis Eschenbach's response in the summary. It appears that The Economist didn't even bother to contact Eschenbach before publishing this article by an apparently unnamed author. That isn't exactly what I would consider high-quality journalism.

I know it's an inconvenient truth, but the leaked documents weren't limited to email correspondence...

Climate-gate.org simply appears to be a repository for the leaked documents. I don't believe they've opined on the subject. That's been left to others.

Notice I didn't say anything about Nature...

Evidence cited by realclimate.org should no longer be considered admissible in this debate. The contributors at that site are not to be trusted. Click the link; read the correspondence of theirs that was leaked. They are not interested in science but rather pushing an agenda.

It's the content of the correspondence in question that makes the source unreliable. Please click the link and read up on the issue.

Realclimate.org is an unreliable source considering their correspondence was included among the leaked emails. Just sayin'...

Very few people dispute that the Earth is in a warming period due to recovery from the Little Ice Age. That's not the issue.

One issue is that the proxy data was manipulated in such a way that makes current temperatures appear to be warmer than at any other point in historical times. Another issue is that certain proxies, such as the Tiljander series, were used incorrectly. A third issue is that certain treemometers appear to have been cherry-picked over others in order to provide results that were more sought after. I suggest you research the work done by Steve McIntyre at his blog. New content is being added to this mirror.

Citing realclimate.org doesn't help your cause. Several contributors to that site have been implicated in the leaked emails.

With regards to the content of your post, the data was most certainly manipulated. Have you not taken the time to discover the coding travesty documented in the HARRY_READ_ME file that was leaked along with the emails? Here are a couple good links to start with.

Substitute "disapprove of" with "disagree with" in the above. I need to work on my proofreading...

Some folks believe that the Federal government is incapable of properly "reforming" health care / health insurance in this country. I would much prefer that each state attempt to tackle reform on their own, much like Massachusetts has done. That allows people to vote with their feet should they not agree with policy they firmly disagree with.

Personally, I think a lot of good would come from simply allowing insurance companies to sell policies across state lines and from common sense tort reform.

LOL -- you're already being modded down, but that was pretty funny.