They took a random presentation of a pseudoskeptic, and demonstrate what happens if you to take at least the following steps
For every reference used in the presentation:
![critical-thinking critical-thinking](http://lh4.ggpht.com/-SoVZIPQGx7Q/Ukf0sCm0W4I/AAAAAAAABos/UUM_0JZiUE4/critical-thinking_thumb%25255B1%25255D.jpg?imgmax=800)
- check if the cited article hasn’t been retracted/corrected
- check if the ‘conclusion’ used in the presentation actually is the conclusion of the original author
- check if the reference used is an op-ed or a peer review paper
- check if the source is a scientific paper or not
- check if the presentation uses the original legend of the graph
- check if the axis are labelled correctly
- check if the graph actually supports the message of the presentation
- check if the graph is not taken out of context
- when there are several graphs used:
- check if all graphs use the same units and scale
- check if all graphs represent the same time period
- in case of doubt: look for the original data and replot the graph
- check if that statement is referenced
- check if the statement isn’t taken out of context
For every time-period used in the presentation
- check if the time-span used is long enough to be speaking about climate instead of noise (so, no conclusions of a one-year time span etc.)
With just a little critical thinking, you stumble upon issues like this:
![critical thinking critical thinking](http://lh6.ggpht.com/-VSmk864Tr-o/Ukf0uqcAjLI/AAAAAAAABo8/NSb1jyu1xm4/critical%252520thinking_thumb%25255B7%25255D.png?imgmax=800)
![critical thinking2 critical thinking2](http://lh3.ggpht.com/-ypGrokt-ABc/Ukf0zp0hQbI/AAAAAAAABpM/SipeEYp7yB4/critical%252520thinking2_thumb%25255B3%25255D.png?imgmax=800)
![critical thinking3 critical thinking3](http://lh5.ggpht.com/-iQIl7CV7GyU/Ukf02B4JnII/AAAAAAAABpc/z93TOlvllR4/critical%252520thinking3_thumb%25255B7%25255D.png?imgmax=800)
There’s some more slides on the TECLIM-page left as an exercise. Enjoy.