This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
I'm a bit confused by your post Brad. Who is the "smart person" you're talking about? Is it "good.is", the author of the post on the digg.com link? Also good.is doesn't provide a link, as far as I can see, to the new website that he/she is talking about.
My understanding of what good.is is talking about, for people who don't follow the AGW caper very closely, is that a list of 900 AGW sceptic papers was compiled by the Popular Technology blog:
This list of 900 or so papers was a response, I believe, to Al Gore's claim, probably made in his Inconvenient Truth film, that out of a list of 928 peer-reviewed papers on AGW, no paper held a sceptical position on AGW.
The list of AGW sceptic papers has been criticised by various Greenie bloggers, and one blog called Carbon Brief, run almost inevitably by someone from Greenpeace, claimed that 9 out of 10 of the main AGW sceptic authors were funded by ExxonMobil. Popular Technology did provide a response to this allegation, they interviewed the authors and all of them said they were not funded by ExxonMobil apart from Fred Singer who received an unexpected and unsolicited donation of $10,000 more than a decade ago.
@Dave -- the smart people in question here are the masses (including names like Phil Plait, Karl Kruszelnicki, and Michael Shermer) of smart people who will day in and day out get ****** off if someone commits an act of Ad Hominem on any other subject, but when it comes to AGW, they will stand to the side and say "Oh, that is a reasonable use of AH" or more likely completely miss the fact that there is a fallacy involved.
In Shermer's case, he wrote the book on "Why smart people believe weird things!"
I am not sure completely why these people aren't suitably angered by the revelations of ClimateGate and the other disputing information that keeps arising the AGW debate. Phil Plait has even said "I don't know why they won't release the code or data, but there are reasons for that" and then goes on to imply "I trust these scientists!".
We are all our own inertial reference frame. We have good reasons to believe that our own IRF are valid. We talk of walking in another man's shoes, but few of us ever try.
Thanks for the clarification Brad. I've sorted out the other thing which was causing me major confusion. "good.is" isn't the name of a poster on the digg.com website, it's the name of a website, but for some reason the site is difficult to view using an Opera browser like I use. I managed to see the link by switching to Internet Explorer and the story is pretty much what I guessed it was.