Seems to me that it's always related, right?<p>Or put differently: it's related if you feel that the discussion around global warming involves cherry-picking data by skeptics. In that case it's very relevant. If, on the other hand, you feel that the discussion around global warming is at it's heart based on the politicization of science? Then the article is just another example of using the media to try to argue a political point in a scientific context.<p>Is it so difficult to stick to the story? We all agree you can cherry-pick data and make it say anything. Surely both sides of the GW debate don't have a problem with that statement. So why try to use it against one side without giving a response from them? It's a cheap shot.