Your article is very good with one glaring exception:

"In the entire article, not one scientist is quoted defending basic global warming consensus, which is supported by a vast array of peer-reviewed research and the vast majority of climate scientists."

Screw quotes. Screw peer review. Screw consensus.

There's a basic tenet of science that you're missing here: real scientists test their hypotheses and produce new data. Period. That's what's missing from global warming skeptics, antievolutionists, antivaccationists, and those who claim that animal research doesn't work.

I think David was barking at the political aspects of things, like how some dumbchit "gurl" named Erika found that the consensus was aerosol cooling and not greenhouse gas warming - not that she would know about radiative forcing and atmospheric science.

But getting a bunch of scientists together such as the IPCC to reach a consensus must have been like trying to make cats march in a parade! Scientists don't do "consensus" unless somehow their work is peer reviewed, replicated, and somehow years later their work becomes the accepted norm. Last I checked, there were some hypotheses and theories that Einstein proposed (relativity, unified theory) that still have not been completely vetted.

Matter of fact, most scientists hate each others guts - by profession, university, corporation, politics, where they publish, or whatever.

You have to admit one thing, the Conservative Model really works and it has scared the chit out of the people who really do treat this stuff seriously, as a threat to our environment and ecology: us liberals.  People actually believe that line of hooey!
sammie

Onward through the fog

"I think David was barking at the political aspects of things..."

I know, but politics is about framing, and the "skeptics" are winning politically when we adopt their frames. Such battles should never be fought on the basis of credentials, quotes, or consensus--just the data.

For me, the most effective frame is a parody of the milk ads. Just ask, "Got data? Until you generate some, you're not practicing science in this matter."

Those articles are terribly misleading, by any standard.  I hope the author is good at saying, "do you want fries with that?"  In her next career, which I predict will be starting soon, she'll need that skill.

If she advances to foxnews producer, she maybe asking guests if they "want fries with that", when she orders them lunch.

This IS the level of competence on foxnews, she is well suited to work there.  And since Rupert the pirate (arrrhhh) now owns the Wall Street journal, she might even be hired there too?

Meanwhile over at the NYT, we see Bill Kristol.  So tell me again how this woman has violated modern journalistic standards?  Hehehey.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Pangolin wrote:
"Smokey, your criticism of the OP is that it doesn't cite data..."

Not at all. My criticism is that the practice of quoting people concedes too much to pseudoscientists.

"... when in fact it cites numerous sources that summarize and collate legitimate scientific findings and only legitimate scientific findings."

You've checked them all? Do you realize that very few reviews are peer-reviewed?

"Given that the review paper citing abstracts of a series of reports and summarizing findings into a concise whole is a well known and practiced scientific technique I don't see the validity of your criticism."

Given that reviews (they cite papers, not just abstracts) don't count as scientific productivity and are rarely peer-reviewed, I think you don't understand my point at all.

"A valid criticism is that the so-called "journalist" in the politico piece is in no way qualified to judge the difference between legitimate scientific findings and political blather by whack jobs with science degrees."

I agree. That is shown more effectively by making the top criterion the production of new data, not by gathering quotes from both "sides."

"Not that I have a science degree but I can recognize there is a difference between peer reviewed works and Anthony Watts blog."

So, do you realize that reviews are rarely "peer reviewed works"?

"Politico's acceptance and promotion of such low-standard work should taint the rest of site. It screams "we'll accept any old trash as content" reducing it from journalism to something akin to  Twitter."

I agree completely. My only criticism of the piece here was the concession of important ground to climate change deniers.

Gesh, give me a break. Are we going to take all our toys home b/c someone writes a story that doesn't agree with us?  I'm sure every pro AGW story out there in the media is meticulously sourced and worthy of a Pulitzer.  The whining ABOUT this article is ten times more ridiculous than the article itself.  

Her experience:

Intern/reporter
The Wall Street Journal
(Public Company; 5001-10,000 employees; DJ; Newspapers industry)

September 2006 -- December 2006 (4 months)

I traveled to Phoenix, Tampa and New Orleans to cover various aspects of the 2006 Congressional races. I also blogged for Washington Wire.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Here's an explanation.  Jobs at mass delusional media outlets are awarded by who one knows and how good one is at sucking up to the conventional wisdom accepted by the dimmest bulbs in the operation.

Those dimmest bulbs are the executives. They actually believe foxnews/rush radio bullshit like this reporter regurgitated onto Politico.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

There should be a rule against clueless cub reporters writing about global warming!

Whiskerfish

Much of the site, including the reply to Russ and DR's  letter to the editor, doesn't work.  

Is this typical?  "Fair and balanced" blatant outdated, controversial talking points  often increase readers for awhile, who then find the IT department is under funded.  And thus never bother to return.

I didn't save a link to Politico, will any new readers, given the problematic operation of their site?  Probably not.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Ever wonder why it was a crime to print the bible in ENGLISH.