Tim Lambert has to be the hardest working blogger out there. He actually puts time and energy into researching his posts, which are often fairly technical, instead of just shooting from the hip (my preferred method). He has repeatedly made the pro-gun and anti-global warming crowds look like collections of fools, and all in an informal medium. His most recent demolotion of McKitrick on global warming is a case in point. What really cracks me up is not Lambert's damaging critique, but the fact that it was brought on by yet another poorly researched Tech Central Station article. In that article, it is claimed that McKitrick's research sounds the death knell for those who believe in global warming. This would be exciting news, if it weren't for the fact that McKitrick's research is riddled with errors that, when corrected, lead to no such conclusion. This is what Lambert shows. Why didn't the authors of the Tech Central Station article realize this? Because they didn't bother to actually evaluate the research! It's not as if it would have been difficult to check the research, as commentors on Lambert's post have shown. They just didn't bother to do it, presumably because they agreed with its conclusion. This is what we want people who write articles on science to do -- write tendentiously, without having any real knowledge of the topic or research on which they are reporting1! Thank God Tech Central Station offers us a forum for just such reporting.
1See here for another case of Lambert putting Tech Central Station "on blast," as the kids say.