by Patrick Appel
Dave Roberts further dismantles Kevin Williamson's argument that the scientific views of politicans don't matter:
[I]n a dispute between "two scientists with different opinions about climate forecasting," what Chait or Huntsman thinks is irrelevant. But that's not the dispute. The dispute is between [climate change skeptic Richard] Lindzen and 97 to 98 percent of other practicing climate scientists. In that situation, Williamson's own heuristic — "argument from credential" — pretty overwhelmingly suggests going with the bulk of scientists. It's hard to imagine what could possibly suggest going with the outlier in the absence of specialist, first-order concerns that Williamson concedes he doesn't have.
The Dish 