Your comment is the usual ad-hominem, appeal to authority, and appeal to popularity. Nothing to see here -- in your response.

Let's review... The hacked emails look bad, but they were obtained illegally and were never meant for public consumption - these emails were never "peer reviewed" so to speak. As far as I'm concerned, they are irrelevant, as tempting as it is to see some giant conspiracy in them.

The fact that this is modded 5-insightful shows where Slashdot has gone. Bye, it was nice knowing you, Slashdot.

What you are saying is true for cases where the data is so small that reproducing the experiment is not a major investment. But when you are a government-funded organization with millions of pounds invested in collecting and collating the data, some of which may not even be obtainable in the same form, to claim that your results are reproducible because someone else can invest millions of pounds is ridiculous. Yet that is what the HadCRU data set would require to be reproduced, *even if* the description were comprehensible.

What a load. Peer review is not accuracy checking in the slightest. It is a sanity check on submitted articles, to remove obvious poseurs.

They have tossed the raw data, not intermediate runs. Their numbers simply cannot be reproduced. Their data set is essentially meaningless. They are saying "trust us", and the code that is evident in the files posted shows that you can't even begin to trust them.

Their work is completely discredited. They are disgraced.

The Guardian has an editorial claiming that the economic establishment is too fearful to come clean on the reality of oil suppplies, and makes an analogy with the (marginalized, demonized) economists who warned of a coming economic collapse in 2007.

What about the (marginalized, demonized) economists who forecast an economic collapse every year from 1980 to 2000? Even Jeanne Dixon got a few right.

If you read through the entire article, you can find some interesting information on what it was he wanted us to do. Instead of regulating CO2 emissions, he states that it is more economical to reduce the amount of radiation from the sun that reaches the earth. I don't really understand his position. In effect, he's saying, "I don't believe in global warming. However, even if I did, there's no reason to regulate CO2 emissions."
He's against limiting CO2 because he doesn't believe it can work. Neither do I. Even Waxman-Markey proponents agree that it will have an insignificant effect on world temperatures.

He seems bent against regulation of CO2 at any cost.

That's semantically a bit over the top.

Secondly, he also states that global temperatures have fallen for the last 11 years. I really would like to see his work. This article (http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/83), reported in the September 26 issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows global temperatures rising for the last 30 years.

As they have apparently risen and fallen for millenia, in 30 year cycles. Now they are falling again. The IPCC graphs that the EPA is basing their engangerment finding on? Not a single one of them shows a falling. As it has for the last 10 years since the El-Nino-influenced year of 1998. More importantly, they have also fallen since 2002.

This man strikes me as being very much against any type of environmental regulation, and I'm not surprised that the EPA is trying to silence him.
The EPA is not supposed to silence anyone. I am a bit shocked that you think
that silencing an opposing scientific viewpoint is OK. Of course that is the
constant tactic of many environmentalists....I suppose you might be one.

You keep tossing out this consensus thing. News flash -- the consensus is shattered. Try this on for size:

http://sciencespeak.com/NoEvidence.pdf

He also has a Caltech degree in Physics, and they don't give those out by mail order.

You should be responding to his science, not trashing the man.

You simply don't get it. Why would anyone bother taking the risk of entering into a domain moving transaction for peanuts? Why would they bother? To make $20.00? With the risk of problems that can happen. There are several steps you have to monitor. Why bother?