YES...GLOBAL WARRRRRMING IS HAPPENING... its true.. after all..I made a movie about it and I've written booooks about it....

Jim... quick.. grab me another parcel of shares in 'CLIMATE EXCHANGE'
it looks like our plan worked.. we have people even in Austraylia writing about it :) our current share holding should be worth gazillions soon.. let's add to it then we can fund MORE articles like that one in OLO.

http://www.generationim.com/about/team.html

David (Blood) send

-Naomi Oreskes
-Karin G
-ERic Conman

some options in our company GENERATION INVESTMENTS..they are doing such a gr8 job for us...

I founded the ALLIANCE FOR CLIMATE PROTECTION a few years back.. we drummed up $300 mill...and told em "go...spread the word.. persuade persuade persuade.. people that CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL"... well.. (note to self) seems like it worked..

NEWS JUST IN...
http://climateerinvest.blogspot.com/2009/02/al-gore-score-generation-investment.html

Generation IM Climate Solutions Fund, L.P. (the "Shareholder") increased their shareholding (in CAMCO INTERNATIONAL) and now holds 23,250,000 ordinary shares of €0.01 each in the Company, representing approximately 13.74% of the Company's issued ordinary share capital.

CAMCO ? What do they do ? :)

http://www.camcoglobal.com/

SCAMSTEPS

1/ Create a perception of the problem.
2/ Posture YOU as the solution.
3/ Make MEGAbucks out of providing the solution to the problem you created a perception of.

Promises by previous 8 US Presidents to wean economy off dependency on fossil fuels:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-june-16-2010/an-energy-independent-future

From the sublime to the: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10577&page=0#174087

Balanced coverage?

qanda, in the shops three weeks from Monday and thanks for asking. $29.95, Connor Court. You should buy a copy.

Loxton - I sympathise with your bewilderment over the now widely held forecast that the world will cool over the next few years but the forecast still stands. Sceptics say that the cooling will continue for decades longer. The global warming proponents - that is the reasonable ones - say that it will occur for a few years before the CO2 induced warming overcomes the natural cycle (or perhaps temepratures may remain steady). Either way its now tacitly accepted by the warmists that some cooling will occur. They still stand by the long term forecasts, if that is any comfort. Check back on my (Mark Lawson's) articles on this site and you'll see the reasoning.

As for the author's contention that somehow a handful of underfunded sceptics managed to turn back a flood tide of green propaganda, we can all agree that its straight nonsense..

Phoenix94

Just like the writings of new dogs recruited by the denialists, you use old tricks by referring readers to fossil fuel shills who hawk their wares as ‘climate consultants or climate scientists.’ You have a cheek when none of the ‘climate experts’ to whom you refer are peer-reviewed, let alone qualified.

1. Your reference to author, Donna Laframboise reveals her sloppy work when she refers to ‘James Johnston’ ignorantly unaware that the paper she cites was written by Jason Scott Johnston. Both Laframboise and Jason are favourites of the Heartland Institute:

“Welcome to the Smoker’s Lounge, (Heartland Institute) the place to go for sound science, economics, and legal commentary on tobacco issues. This “issue suite” cuts through the propaganda and exaggeration of anti-smoking groups...."

Now just who are the ‘forty researchers’ Laframboise refers to Phoenix and why the obfuscation? Could it be because the IPCC looks at all the information which includes publishing peer-reviewed papers as well as gray literature from government reports and other important information sources?

2. Joseph D’Aleo is a retired meteorologist, not a climate scientist. He has no PhD and, according to Google Scholar, no peer-reviewed publications. A Google search on his blog the ICECAP, turns up nothing so draw your own conclusions.

3. The Science and Public Policy Institute’s chief policy adviser is one duplicitous Christopher Monckton, a retired hack and who the denialists insist was once a science advisor to Margaret Thatcher – a complete fallacy.

All these oil shills lead to the Heartland Institute and are parasites. They do not perform any climate research themselves but suck off the intensive research performed by credible climate scientists by mangling the results and peddling the disinformation to influence half-wits.

However, there are peer reviewed journals published by Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, John Christy and the Pielke’s that provide facts contrary to the IPCC but five sceptical climate scientists who actually work within the profession are hardly a consensus.

Don't be a 'hasbeen', avoid doing a 'runner' and do try to keep up.

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf

OK, I work with a bunch of climate scientists and have just come from a climate change adaptation conference. The notion that this is a criminal conspiracy is just nonsense! Group-think is the only real possibility, and until recently I hadn't entirely written that possibility off. Now I've seen so much data, and heard from so many Pacific island nations that even group-think is now unlikely.
Firstly, yes it is complex science. Just getting the raw data into a useful state is quite involved. Usually because real weather stations often have equipment upgrades, site moves, surrounding land has buildings, car parks, etc. built on them. A local car park can alter temperature readings by up to 1 degree! Urbanisation means that very few weather stations stay consistent over decadal periods.
Also equipment doesn't last forever and needs to be upgraded. New equipment (generally more accurate) reads differently to old equipment. The techniques to convert raw data into long term "apples and apples" data is called homogenisation. In every other science discipline using real world instrument data this is is considered normal and absolutely necessary. Of course the "sceptics" consider this process to be "fiddling" the data for a particular purpose and cite it as evidence of cheating. No, it is just science.
...

...
Another issue: Global warming is *not* just about temperature! It is about energy. A glass of water with ice cubes will *not* get hotter until the ice melts, then the temperature will rise. While we have ice melting, temperatures will not necessarily rise in all areas.
The earth's heat transport mechanism is quite complex and so global "warming" may well result in extreme cold is some parts of the world! As Jeff Goldblum said in Jurassic Park: "Global warming could bring on the next ice age". The ice melt in Greenland may reduce the amount of cold water sinking, which could in turn prevent the warm tropical surface waters from migrating so far north. Result: Europe gets more snow and *much* worse extremes. It might even bring on an ice age! We know that Earth has feedbacks to keep it stable over the long term, what we don't know is if they can handle a massive, incredibly fast shock that humans have given it. It probably (hopefully!) will handle it well in the long term, but in the short term it may over-compensate, or it may struggle to compensate (ie. Ice age or Venus are possibilities, most likely somewhere in between).
The "argument" here is really about cheap energy vs responsibility. Do we pay the piper, or do we delegate this to our kids? It seems that most older folks would rather retire guilt-free, and I can't blame them for this...but there ain't no science fraud going on...just some very uncomfortable possibilities and a lot of uncertainty.