Very interesting article indeed.
One question need to be asked however, which is, WHAT spurred the climate change research in the first place?
I think here is the answer to that question, which by the way might take two hours plus of your time.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6745627342652553091

Dear Col Rouge
My comment was provoked by the author's reference to the need for 'proven fact', which is a devious red herring in an area which, as I was pointing out, can only ever be based on prediction. We do not need to be told that predictions are just predictions.

The key question is whether the predictions are as valid as we can make them. I agree that major policy decisions need to be made on secure evidence, that these are complex matters, and even that some scientists on both sides have special interests to pursue. (Climate change scientists are no doubt enjoying their day in the sun, but note also the number of geologists among the skeptics, a branch of science unfortunately close to the mining industry.)

The argument should be about the evidence, not name calling.

I am beginning to really enjoy the team sport aspect of anthropogenic global warming science.
A new paper comes out by a luminary of one of the participating teams and the supporters are there to snipe at the latest move.
Senior team players will then move with a different statistical analysis to trounce of their opposite number's research.
Is this a new version of chess or a round of the AFL, NRL or RU.
Perhaps the term sport science has a new meaning.
Will the villains and hero's of the future sport science be Mann, McIntyre, Steig, Watt, Pielke Snr and Jnr, Lomborg et al.
Will they take a page out of Premier Beattie's book and become media tarts.
I can only wait to see what the transfer fee will be when a major player changes teams mid season like Craig Lowndes did when he moved from Holden to Ford.
I for one follow the Copenhagen Consensus Team with that great mid fielder Bjorn Lomborg and their team ethos of accepting there is nought we can do about AGW and are better off keeping the money in the public purse available to deal with the consequences of a climate doing its thing and changing.
I for one will be getting in some calves and lambs for the time when meat gets to $100/kg as predicated in the mornings papers.
There is a advantage in living well outside the cities after all

When you consider that everyone who is pro Intelligent Design is also anti-AGW theory, it makes sense that an article like this is considered worthy of publication. But that's the only reason.

Maybe it is 124c4u who should be looking at some photos. How about http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/0857806.jpg which shows a US submarine surfacing at the North Pole in open water on 17 March 1959. Something which was repeated in 1987 this time by three submarines. And I am sure Amundsen would be displeased that you are denying him his place in history in relation to his navigation of the North-west passage over a hundred years ago. And the SS Manhatton as the first commercial vessel to do it 1969. And how about a more modern record - the fact that 2009 is the first year in over 50 years that the North Pole weather station has failed to record a temperature above freezing before the end of June. Real facts never got in the way of a good rant by a warmaholic, did they? But if you really want to get some credible records about the arctic you could try http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/RS_Arctic.htm

A number of things worry me about this whole global warming business.
One worry is the computer model.
A while back I read an article by a computer modeling expert.
He had used the IPCC's model, I understand you can change inputs and
use it yourself.
Well he had done that and had some reservations about the program.
He asked for a copy of the source code, but was refused.

To his mind and mine that is a worry if the operation of the program
cannot be independently verified.
There is just too much money and effort depending on this one computer
program to keep its source code confidential.
Until other experts can examine the source code it seems the output
has to be questionable.

GIGO