1.  My horse doesn't do drugs, so it's unlikely that it's high

2.  The National Post article you reference was printed well after the retractions, not before. 

3.  "Nobel Peace Prize laureate for her work on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" (her words) is clearly meant to give the impression that she herself has received a Nobel Peace Prize

4.  Even her current profiles imply that she's one of a few people that contributed to the IPCC, instead of 1 of hundreds.  It doesn't help her credibility

5.   Elected officials should be held to a higher standard, period.

6.  If I post something, it's based on objective facts and data and is easily corroborated from multiple sources if someone is so inclined to check.   Unless, of course, it's meant to be humorous - e.g. point #1