Many parts of the argument over AGW are sufficiently complicated so that, unless you are a professional in the field, there is no good way of telling who to believe. The result is that most people simply believe whatever story supports what they see as their side. An example would be the question of whether AGW will increase or decrease food supplies.
Once in a while, however, someone offers a contribution to the debate that is obviously dishonest—obviously enough so that a careful reader can spot the trick. The fact that there are dishonest people on one side or the other of the argument does not tell you that that side is wrong. But how their argument is treated by other people on that side does give you some information on who you should or should not trust. Any source of information—newspaper, web page, scientific journal, blog—that takes seriously work which a careful reader can see is dishonest should not be trusted, since it is either dishonest or incompetent.
I have two and a half examples from the CAGW side of the argument, the claim that, unless we take strong measures to slow AGW, the net results will be very bad. One is an article that tries to obscure the positive effect of CO2 fertilization by claiming that a change which increases the yield of every nutrient threatens human nutrition—because it increases some by more than others. One is the source of the much quoted 97% figure, along with a later piece in which the lead author misrepresents the result of his own work. One is a piece in a high profile popular publication by an economist arguing that AGW is a threat that requires immediate action—and reporting results of his own research that imply the opposite, but reporting them in a form that hides the fact. I count that as a half because I am not sure that the deception was deliberate.
What I find depressing is how few people, faced with clear evidence that someone on their side of the argument is dishonest, are willing to accept it.
I invite people to offer similar examples on the other side. They should be publications by respectable figures that meet two conditions:
1. They are obviously dishonest--obvious enough so that the demonstration does not depend on trusting some other source with the opposite bias.
2. They are taken seriously by lots of reputable people on that side of the argument.