Lambert's article was the easiest one to find that described the error McKitrick and Michaels made in detail. I try to find sources that are explanatory -- their politics are irrelevant. If I could find good right-wing sources that have accurate information on climate science (Roger Pielke's blog comes close), I'd utilize them too. But I never evaluate whether they are right-wing or left-wing, I try to determine if their science is respectable.
“their politics are irrelevant” - His *first sentence* was garbage about a ‘right wing attack on science’. Utter slanderous garbage to feed BS to leftie minions and keep them on the ‘reservation’ about hyped-up AGW fears. If his own politics is front and center, then its quite relevent, and his brand of politicized pseudo-science is everything *WRONG* about how the liberals/left approaches the issue. They dont just dispute the skeptics but slander and demonize them.
I am not asking for a ‘right wing source’, I am only asking that you not consider a biased leftwing source such as Tim Lambert as authoritative. This is not the first time you ref’d to him. You are giving away where you are really coming from with this BS, especially when you call non-partisan Pielke a “right-wing source” (WTF?!?!)