This discussion on how science has been co-opted for a political agenda (an agenda that may have little concern with climate change), is enlightening and depressing at the same time.
Buy the Truth
I found a few more interesting links:
Yale forum Note I believe they failed to make their point. First, the missing stations had more lower points on the graph than not, although it followed the same path. Second, it doesn't matter that the path is similar, what matters is the result, which isn't measured on this graph at all. The result being the line that included both sets compared with these independent lines. Third, and this is addressed by the author in the comments, there aren't enough reporting stations to offer much statistical certainty.
TED This does a good job of getting to the irrelevance of the whole debate
The resilient earth Wow, real science stuff
Trackforum This discussion goes on for 8 pages. There is a lot of data here. For a long rainy weekend.
Jerome Ravitz who is a philosopher of science (and some people think the father of the problem, not the solution). I think he lays out the credibility issue and its consequences very well.
Trump declines to endorse Paris Climate Accord
9 hours ago