Tamino's is not just an excellent climate resource, but an excellent statistical one as well. He manages to explain everything from autocorrelation to principal components analysis in ways even a casual reader can follow. He even provides direct links to the full datasets, so folks can acquire them themselves and test his claims. (Hint: Gary, you'd do well to learn what Excel's LINEST function does.)

It's also hilarious to see someone skilled at both statistics AND communication (Tamino's a professional statistician specializing in time series analysis) take repeated inane but scientific-sounding claims and basically bend them over the desk. Antony Watts makes these statements with (un)surprising regularity.

I'm posting a reply to this with an in-depth sample of what I consider the 'best of Tamino'; it's in a secondary reply because there's a load of links and I'd rather not have this part of the message choked up in moderation.

I forgot to mention this one earlier.

http://cce.890m.com/

cce's done a spectacular job covering nearly all of the science, non-science, and nonsense associated with this debate, punctuated with the reasons why we're running out of time. He does so in a clear, concise and thorough fashion.

For instance, Just take a look at his example in the introduction, which takes the "volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans" claim and traces it back through the PR echo chamber to its original source (which may surprise some viewers), along with comparisons to what the actual statements of the experts involved were and links to how far this distortion has propogated. All the way along he cites his sources and provides direct links to the references, showing how easy it is to do a bit of investigation into his, and others', claims.

The entire presentation is like that, and I highly, HIGHLY recommend it, in much the same fashion that I recommend Oreskes' now-famous "American Denial of Global Warming" lecture/video. cce is also preparing these as scripts for a video presentation; one exists of an earlier draft already, with this site serving as the next revision.

Check it out.

Try this one.
It reads just the same and is equal in scientific validity.
http://www.badarchaeology.net/confused/creation_science.php

Thank you for the kind words. Readers might be interested in the little tempest I now have. Bleah. Try to talk about science and have to deal with tempests instead.

Last week I wrote a short note (you should see what I consider long :-) about icecap.us. Well, the owner has taken exception as of last night with a lengthy rant (his word) about me (at least it's supposed to me, but he also talks a lot about Real Climate, which I'm not). Along the way, he commits a new raft of errors. My response to that is now up.

I encourage folks to read all four articles (fourth being D'Aleo's original). If you think I'm the one who made the error, post a comment over on my blog so I'll be sure to see it. Do, as I'd like on my site, support your argument with substance rather than invective and links to science.

That last sentence should read:
Do, as I'd like on my site, support your argument with substance rather than invective, and links to science.

i.e., links to substantive sources are welcome. Keep the numbers reasonable too. (I'd dropped the comma from my typing.)