Are you really comfortable citing them?<p>Here&#x27;s a discussion of the author of that post&#x27;s prior work: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;tamino.wordpress.com&#x2F;2014&#x2F;02&#x2F;13&#x2F;making-up-stuff&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;tamino.wordpress.com&#x2F;2014&#x2F;02&#x2F;13&#x2F;making-up-stuff&#x2F;</a><p>edit: fascinating how easy it is to be downvoted simply by pointing out the lack of credibility of AGW skeptics. On one hand, you have the overwhelming majority (97-74%) of professional scientist saying (respectively) that global warming is occuring or that it&#x27;s man-made and provable with existing science. On the other hand, you have people with dubious credentials, poor ethics, and&#x2F;or extraordinary conflicts of interest as paid fellow at Cato, Heartland, AEI, et al.<p>All of this is easily verified by simple use of a search engine. Since... just about nobody here is a professional climate researcher, I think all we can go on is the credibility of sources of information. It is not ad hominem to bring someone&#x27;s motivation and prior record into consideration.