By the way, if anybody is curious about the kind of things Steve McIntyre (the ClimateAudit.org guy) pulls, check out the 0.03 degree temperature change.

I'm sad that my favorite science blog on climate change (realclimate.org) didn't even make the list. It's like the only blog I've seen where they use, y'know, actual science, and present things as "just the facts." Plus because its run by actual climate scientists, they actually regularly do updates on the most recent developments in the field. I think the problem is that they discuss technical details, but have little of the show business of more popular pundits on the matter.

-----
To those of you claiming that climatologists are so passionate that they lose all objectivity on the matter, I'd first like to ask you to source that, because besides being insulting, if you're just making it up as an ad hominem attack on climate science you're engaging in libel. To a scientist, nothing is more important than their reputation for objectivity and correctness.

In fact, keep in mind it isn't "alarmism" if in fact it's well substantiated and supported. I find that very few people who charge "alarmism" have any better factual basis for saying so, other than as a substitute for a lack of science supporting their position.

In this business of controversial science, I have to laugh at how of all of the fields of science only in climate science (and evolutionary biology) are scientists "passionate" and "ego-driven" to "lose objectivity" such that they could make such a colossal mistake that people claim they make. Yet somehow this doesn't happen in fields of science where the general public doesn't care about the results.

Lesson learned: "don't randomly give your administrator password and click 'accept' on any application downloaded to your computer from a website you visit."

With the administrator block, it's basically a phishing technique, though I suppose in the millions of people out there, there is probably someone guillable enough to actually fall for it.

Ah, the good ol' Morlock/Eloi theory.

Technically that's not de-evolution. It would be divergent evolution (evolution in which a species diversifies into two different ones).

In all honesty, though I'm sure China has its share of irresponsible business practices, the recent Mattel fiasco has left me wondering how much of these latest China scares are genuine and how many are your average "yellow peril" sentiments perpetuated by shady journalism. I mean what better way for U.S. businesses to (a) defend against foreign competition and (b) utilize a handy scapegoat for errors, than to use the old "yellow peril" stereotype which is so ingrained upon people's collective consciousnesses?