A nice use of data visualizations to get the point across (repeatedly). It's easy to cherry-pick the data and graph-type to demonstrate your point on one graph-- but to show the same trend on a number of different graph types, with a number of different data sources, over a variety of different periods-- well, that's harder to argue with.
I gave up after the 3rd paragraph. So much anger. It just sets the reader up to expect that the rest of the article will be biased.<p>Why write an article this way? If the data is really on your side, just present it.
If you're interested in winning, you will destroy your opponents' arguments. But if you're interested in the truth, you will fix their arguments for them to the best of your ability, and then set out to update your position accordingly.<p>To make an impression on <i>me</i>, don't go looking for easily dismantled arguments. Pick your most formidable intellectual opponents. Try arguing successfully against the best available brand of "denialism" (what a word!) - the blog Climate Audit. For example, explain to me this: <a href="http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5902" rel="nofollow">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5902</a> .
Yesterday I read this report written by the Environmental Protection Agency <a href="http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf</a>. In 98 pages they basically show that the science IS NOT conclusive. It may well be C02, it may not. Having worked with the EPA before, they find pretty much every excuse to ban or regulate something so when they say it is NOT doing what others say, I listen.<p>Interestingly one of the main factors they contribute to their differing results from the IPCC report is that the IPCC report closed its paper submission windows in early 2006 even though it was published in 2007, so the work is 3 years out of date. This paper was written in the last 2 months and cites dozens of papers over the last 3 years that contradict the IPCC's "findings".