By writing "Just as the famous "hockey stick" graph could not hold up to scrutiny," you show a particular bias. There was a huge political uproar because both sides tried to make too much of one study in isolation.

When the data is examined in totality, the key concerns that the "hockey stick" has raised are holding up to scrutiny. What we should do about those concerns is a valid political question, but too many people are using political arguments to obfuscate scientific conclusions.

That's why I said to follow the questions for yourself and to beware of politically biased summaries clothing themselves as scientific skepticism. We're always better off if we learn enough about the science to read the primary source material rather than relying on others to summarize it for us.

However, if you want to see a variety of summaries, including the political solutions advocated by Newt Gingrich, the books I review (and sometimes criticize) are listed at this link.

You'll also find some interesting back-and-forth discussion at some of my older blog entries, including discussions of Kilimanjaro and warming on other planets. The bias of many commenters is in full blaze there, as are my (I hope) more reasoned responses.

Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)