Great. Except there's no indication that the answers arrived at were bad. The methods were sub-optimal. They went 'round the barn more than needed. That's what "correct" means. You can't just make stuff up, fudge, and elide, right?

Informing policy is completely nebulous. Being a Reductionist is no way to go through life, son.

You've misinterpreted the statement. Sorry. And you've invented a cross to bear. The scientists at CRU aren't involved in policy. The fluctuations aren't hard to measure. Sports isn't science or even vaguely analogous. Nobody but you brought up Wall St. time frames. Climate scientists aren't environmental scientists. CRU isn't the only center for analysis and the other centers have published their data and methods. So, insightful comment, old chap. You got nothing right!

"Malfeasance" means something. What's insightful about simply regurgitating (and not supporting) a charge?

A complex statistical analysis was done sub-optimally. Learn to read.

"...though arriving at correct results" How does a mere kvetch get modded 5?

The cooling nature of some industrial aerosols has been known for a long time. Just last Fall we were treated with the project to pump hundreds of millions of tons of SO2 into the stratosphere via 12 mile long tubes at the poles. In was in the Freakanomics book that was a 9 day wonder everywhere.

This had been going on for YEARS! Did nobody notice that 2 Judge Roy Beans had been putting kids in jail for trivialities? Did these bozos just sit on their kickbacks, saving them up for their retirement?

That's why I said "explicitly". Yours is a reasonable conjecture. As was Lincoln's argument: that the rebellion would suspend the execution of all American laws in the areas he (Lincoln) specified in his habeas suspension directives. (It's part of life that a reasonable argument often counters another reasonable argument.) So, the assertion is that Lincoln's a monster for suspending habeas in an area getting ready to rebel? He had taken a vow to uphold the Constitution and to see that all the laws of the US were faithfully executed. To do that he made a questionable assumption about the suspension of habeas. Which is why I labeled the arguments painting Lincoln a monster and a dictator were purely rhetorical.

Contrast Lincoln's carefully constrained application and painful necessity with the Bush administration open-ended rationale and specious levels of threat. There are obviously terrorists seeking to do us damage. We know it. They know we know it. Yet, the courts aren't threatened with closing. We aren't in imminent peril. The Bush people just wanted to press a belief in the Unitary Executive and had a rubber stamp cowardly Congress to effect it.

The Constitution doesn't explicitly say that the power to suspend habeas is given to the Legislature. It does say though that habeas could only be suspended during times of invasion of rebellion. The Civil War was clearly an instance of rebellion. Lincoln's suspensions were constrained as to time and geography. The arguments painting Lincoln as a usurping monster are purely rhetorical. The Bush suspension of habeas was the product of an attitude looking for an outlet, a bully looking for a weakling. Bush (et al) had a theory of the executive and wanted to exercise it. We aren't being invaded. There is no rebellion. There's no need to treat terrorists as something other than simple criminals.

Somehow that doesn't sound like a reasonable response to a bill that was designed to prevent inquiry into a rotten situation. The courts are where evidence of crimes are supposed to be aired. Take the courts out of the equation and we're left with what?

Two points. First, he isn't making a new allegation. Second, does the friggin' Telecom Immunity Bill ring a bell? Hellooooooo, McFly. They didn't decide to protect these people on a hypothetical.

Apparently, there's a lot of people who want to confirm that knowledge of computer technology is evidence of having Aspberger's Syndrome.

Doomsday? Howzabout eternal, slow, remorseless decay without regard to good or evil.