New Scientist unfairly defends science

A brief note: I suggested recently that, since we're skeptical about the claims made by climate scientists (which, again, seems reasonable), we should also be skeptical about the claims made by the "skeptics", many of which are totally overblown, if not outright lies. Anyway, New Scientist had the same idea recently, critically investigating the scientific claims made by some of the leading global warming "skeptics" (and uncritically repeated on myriad blogs, of course).

You know the punchline, right? Well, some of the claims fall apart under a "pattern of strange errors", others are indeed outright lies, and some are just really bad science. The comments, of course, are priceless. Lots of sputtering about how unfair it is to do this. It's "biased", "politically-motivated", a "hack job", et cetera. So, clearly, don't anybody slander the slanderers, or think critically about the "critical thinkers".