You are right on target. A scandal will go unreported if someone cannot synthesize it down to he/she did this (obviously bad thing).
He has got to show how the White House science czar discredited the sound science of credible scientists. He has got to keep it simple.
He should establish the credibility of the scientists in one sentence. Then show how their data was altered, distorted, ridiculed or removed in one or two sentences. Then he has got to show how bogus data was substituted to further the political agenda of planet warming apologists.
This should all be stated in the first paragraph. Then if time and need requires go into all the intricate details of how this was accomplished. But again be straight forward and clear.
This author flew all over the map to make his case and confused everyone. He wound up making people wonder if anything wrong really occurred. JMHO.
This Global warming bullshit has been a pack of lies from the get go, and they, the media included, will never admit it.
I think the tone of debate is going to get harsh, as it needs to. When someone is making up facts as they go along, you need to take off the goves and shove it down their throats.
Sorry, but it does get complex when the documents are presented. Bottom line is that the presentations by the two physicists didn't fit in with the global warming agenda so Holdren was the one to mock them and call them into question.
“A scandal will go unreported if someone cannot synthesize it down to he/she did this (obviously bad thing).”
That’s true. And my personal synthesis will now be “With scientists on both sides of the global warming fence, I choose to go with the ones that don’t lie.”