And here is a perfect example of what has gone wrong with this site...A "Top Editor" who is unable to type a coherent message either:
1) Because they lack the ability
OR
2) Because they are so partisan that they feel they have to post as quickly as possible in order to defend "their side" and so are unable to take the small amount of time to proof-read what they are posting.

And sadly, based on the types of articles which seem to be appearing on this site, the "Editors" seem to be unable to take (or at the least present) an objective view on most controversial topics, instead pushing articles which favor their personal "side" of the arguments...Many of which also seem to be lacking the "tech" factor which this site used to be known for.

Being a tech site, I'm curious: When did a registered domain become referred to as a single website. Having looked at the articles, I see plenty of reference to 28 domains, but no mention of how many sub-domains each has, nor how many sites (blogs/static page/wiki/whatever) are hosted on each domain, and so I was wondering why it is being categorically stated here that there are only 28 websites. My understanding has always been that there can be multiple websites on a single domain, but Slashdot seems to be equating 1 domain=1 website here (and on looking at the links, even some inaccessible domains are being categorised as websites, when it is equally possible they are registered purely for email and have no webpages attached).

Or that Hillary will receive a sentence?

Looks like someone has tickets on themselves here...

I'm curious why it is that on a site where people seem to defend downloading movies\TV shows as not being "theft"\"stealing" (not necessarily condoning or otherwise the practice), the "unauthorized duplication" of encryption keys by the government is considered theft. I would have thought either both are theft, or neither is, and would like to know how both forms of "unauthorized duplication of data" differ so much that only one is considered as theft here.

Now if only they could also manage to have their models reflect observed temperatures as well, then everyone would be happy.

Looks like the source of the release has identified himself:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/-the-origin-of-the-heartl_b_1289669.html

It would appear from this that there is a high likelyhood that all except one of the documents is genuine.

Of course, there's no indication (as yet) that the "Climate strategy" is not a part of the original documents, but given that one document was received from an anonomous source, and Heartland deny that this specific item originated from them, it'd be interesting to know where it originated from.

Looks like the rest of the documents are probably authentic, though.

There's still the sticky matter of intent. Those emails make the intent clear. Now, maybe the people in question cooled down after the heat of the moment and didn't carry through on their threats. Or maybe they did, but failed due to obstacles in their path. We don't know from the emails, but it's showing more of that blatant and emotional anti-scientific bias that colored their thinking and probably their research.

When you talk about the AR4's "devastating" projections are you taking into account the time frame?

Well, I'm sure you've heard of GlacierGate (2035, and all the glaciers in the himalayas were supposed to disappear). Yes, I know these errors have been already admitted, but they're sort of what IPCC AR4 ended up representing as highlights...which the sensationalist press took on as gospel truth, which when debunked got trumpeted from the rooftops by every right wing kook that thinks evolution is wrong, so on and so on.

When it comes to the rate of change, I'm not convinced that we're looking at accelerating changes from 2000 years to 200 years -> my bet is that climate sensitivity is actually low enough and filled with enough negative feedback effects that our contribution is negligible. Of course, I could be wrong, but from what I can gather of the poor proxies that we have to look at in the past, we've already seen historical abrupt changes before.

On top of that, I'm of the firm belief that if global warming was real, and was happening due to CO2 emissions of man, we should encourage it -> a warm world is a better world for humanity in general, and since even though we might see a dramatic shift in 200 years, the upper bounds for any positive feedback effect will stop it from being a runaway situation. If we could re-enter the medieval warm period tomorrow, and stay there for thousands of years, it would be beneficial to humanity, especially considering the poles end up doing most of the warming -> we're not talking about los angeles become 120C year round, we're talking about the upper latitudes going from 40C to 60C...further, I think there's a pretty good argument that our increased global average isn't because of higher maximums, but more from higher minimums (that is to say, our winter months are getting hotter, not our summer months).

Anyway, in 20 years, you can buy dinner, and I'll buy the drinks :) Thanks for the interesting conversation :)

This claim has always been wrong. Read Darwin's original works and that of pro-evolutionary contemporaries like Thomas Henry Huxley or Alfred Russel Wallace. They back their claims with copious evidence. Much of it is obsolete with better supporting evidence nowadays or wrong due to mistakes of the time, but this old work doesn't deserve the libel you heap upon it.

what rubbish. you changed the name because temperatures are in fact dropping. they peaked in 1998 due to el nino, and have had a downward trend since 2006. http://algorelied.com/?p=2429

How can you completely prove AGW using the scientific method? You can't stick the earth in a test tube. You cannot perform repeatable experiments with controlled variables. Thus you can only prove sub-components of AGW that may support the *theory* of AGW.