Reply #58: A tenured professor of POLITICAL science

[Viking12]

Not a scientist. If you had any clue about the history climate blogging, you'd know that Roger Pielke Jr. is an attention whore who will say just about anything to get people to take notice. A reputable scholar making such dramatic claims would not do such shoddy analysis and put it on the web; they'd do a complete analysis and submitted through the peer-review process. A quick google would provide all you need to know about the credibility of referenced source.

As for your inability to understand the difference between "blog science" and "science blogs" -- the former are sites like "Climate (Fr)Audit" and "Watts Up with That" that pretend to do actual science while that latter, such as "RealClimate," are sites that report and discuss actual peer-reviewed science. See the difference? If you don't there's no point in carrying this discussion any further.

Finally, there is no "distinct difference" between posted a link to graph that is a primary portion of a blog post and the blog post itself. That you believe there is elicits questions like, "Are you on crack?"