Varwoche calls M&M 'gibbering buffoons' and as part of an attempt to make a point. Yet M&M have been invited by the NRC to participate in a study of "Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Past 1,000-2,000 Years". Varwoche wasn't invited. I don't know, but I do wonder where that places Varwoche relative to 'gibbering buffoons'.
By the way, A&W had their paper rejected by GRL shortly after the date of the Varwoche link. You can read about it
here. 2nd and 3rd items.
Varwoche posts about McIntyre's qualifications and calls him a 'world class bozo' then posts a link to a blog post about McKitrick as proof. Makes me wonder where that places Varwoche relative to 'world class bozo's'.
Classification of people by use of ad hominem remarks, makes a rational discussion of issues much more difficult than it should be.
When it comes to reading linked items I might suggest the way to read them is to stay aware of the amount of certainty demonstrated in the phrasing of sentences. One of the ways I judge the confidence I have in an article is their word usage. Do they use words such as 'possible' instead of 'probable', 'may' instead of 'will', 'could' instead of 'would'. How often do they use the word 'if'. There are many others, but you get the idea.
Just one example from the Woods Hole link posted somewhere previously above. The subheading is 'Study Suggests Climate Models Underestimate Future Warming'
This says to me that they have an indication the climate models might not be right, but they're not at all sure. They're simply putting out a idea for possible futher investigation. An item such as this might be interesting to some, but doesn't qualify as any sort of settled science.
