For example, The Island of Doubt has a great little edit to a paragraph Sarah Palin's latest speech on the issue and "corrected" it, which is educational in itself for those of you not up to date. I liked it and figured you wold too so here is the main part from it:
The e-mails reveal that leading climateSo I have to clarify, Palin wrote an article for the Washington Post (why they would publish and op-ed piece by probably the least qualified person to write about scientific issues in general, I have no idea) but several people have critiqued - see this piece in the Washington Post by lan I. Leshner, chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and executive publisher of the journal Science.
"experts " deliberately destroyed[deleted copies of] records, manipulatedadjusted data to "hide the decline" in globalselect North American temperatures[tree-ring proxy data that conflicted with observational records], and tried to silence[challenge] their[non-expert] critics' by preventing them from publishing[competency and the wisdom of allowing flawed papers to appear] in peer-reviewed journals. What's more, [T]he documents show that there was noa real consensus even within the CRU crowd. [While s]ome scientists had strongdoubts about the accuracy of estimatesreliability of temperatures[proxy data] from centuries ago[the last three decades, estimates used to back claims that more recent temperatures are rising at an alarming rate, [the observational data since 1850 only confirms the science behind anthropogenic climate change].