Gbaikie presented a reference to a scientific paper and without editorial comment at that.

If you have something coherent to supply in response, go for it.

For example, a comment might have pointed out that the NCASI has some connections to the paper and pulp industry. This "guilt by association" bit has been quite successful in neutralizing scientists and research projects, and saves people the trouble of actually reading the stuff.

Those of us who have paid attention to this kind of thing over the years would also note that the publication this paper appears in was also the source of the famous "hockey stick critique" paper. Not significant in itself, but an opportunity missed if you're trying to make points on bias.

More thoughtful comments might find problems with the use of statistical massaging in general to shove curves around, something used by a LOT of people on all sides of every issue. My rule of thumb is that is if most of a paper seems devoted to the math required to get the data into the shape they need, at least one small red flag should be raised.

See? You could have done all that. But then, you might have blown a fuse trying.