The supposedly buried climate report is not a scientific report.

Rather, it is a compendium of various climate-skeptic talking points, many sources of which are highly dubious. Furthermore, it now appears as if the report itself highly plagiarized a private paper on the subject.

re: #1 freetoken

Link, please.

Not sure exactly that for which you are asking for a link.

Regarding the substance of the report, I gave my opinion here:
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

For the plagiarism part, try here:
"Supressed" Climate Report Cribbed From Patrick Michaels?

[...]
But what about un-referenced sources? Plugging Carlin’s report into Plagiarism Checker.com revealed a whole series of unreferenced sections lifted verbatim from one of the deans of the denial industry, Patrick Michaels, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute.

Have a look: Page 79 of Carlin's PDF states:

“For instance, despite the overall rise in U.S. and global average temperatures for the past 30 years, U.S. crop yields have increased (Figure 3-1), the population’s sensitivity to extreme heat has decreased (Figure 3-2), and our general air quality has improved (Figure 3-3). Further, there has been no long-term increase in weather-related property damage once changes in inflation, population size, and population wealth are accounted for (an essential step in any temporal comparison). All of these trends are in the opposite sense from those described in the EPA’s Endangerment TSD.”

Small world. It seems that a November 19th op-ed piece on Michael’s website entitled “Why the EPA should find against Endangerment” has exactly the same wording and exactly the same graphs. In fact, the entire section 3 of Carlin’s report seems to be a very thin re-write of the anti-EPA piece from last November.

re: #3 freetoken

As soon as I see the words "denial industry" it marks the person as somebody who is unwilling to discuss scientific evidence one way or the other. These are the people who are in the "denial industry" of denying the scientific method. Sorry, but your bias is showing.

re: #3 freetoken

Ahh yes, your opinion, also based on dubious claims from political pro-AGW web sites.

It's hard to know which side of the debate about AGW to believe, but when one side's major response to data that doesn't support their worldview is to claim "discredited; or funded by the oil industry; or S/he's not a scientist", in other words denigrating the author, not the science or the data, you have to wonder what they are hiding. Ask yourself this, why does a pro-AGW web site like RC censor the comments of AGW sceptics, while AGW sceptic web sites like WUWT or Climate Audit allow pro-AGW comments for discussion. Which one is the political, not science web site, again?