blogs about politically charged topics are 'better source' than the NYT or WSJ? ;) I'd say they're equally horrible sources. Blogs in general have a much worse

blogs about politically charged topics are 'better source' than the NYT or WSJ? ;) I'd say they're equally horrible sources. Blogs in general have a much worse average quality than the NYT, but a much higher peak quality. The links I sent you are among the best I have come across at making a clear case for the defense. I don't in particular buy Shaviv's point about cosmic rays, but rather I agree with him on this point: "The fact that GCMs can fit the temperature increase is totally meaningless. Why? Because the allowed parameter space is so large climatologists could fit anything from a small temperature decrease (as was claimed in the 70's, before the imminent ice-age) to double or triple the observed 20th century increase." Again, I have not studied climatalogy in depth. But I have studied economics in depth. I find the statistics and models published in peer reviewed journals and used by the central banks to be atrocious. I can read a very technical article and pull my hair out looking at the flaws. And lo, the predictions these models make invariably turn out to be crap. Yet these errors persist because the selection process in economics academia does not reward truth seeking. I see the same pattern in climate science. There is a selection process that rewards conformity, not truth seeking. And a cursory look at the models and statistics shows that the scientists are indeed "fitting elephants". When you look at the raw unadjusted data, there is simply not much room for alarm. So until I can actually look at the data myself, or I can find experts that I actually do trust to give me an honest take, my default stance is skepticism. (a) a widespread conspiracy to hide the truth and force predetermined conclusions; or (b) an honest but imperfect process gradually iterating towards accuracy. or c) a priesthood. There is a big difference between a conspiracy and a priesthood. Priesthoods are very, very common in history, and they result in very widespread consensuses that turn out to be very wrong. See: The Catholic Church.