How about some news that has more potential for agreement.

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/developing-nations-walk-out-of-climate-talks/story-e6frfku0-1225810384368

This is perfectly fine by me since I have no support for any plan that requires developed countries to reduce their emissions while paying developing countries for past sins. If everyone can agree to reasonable limits that apply equally to all then I'm for that but I'm not for what amounts to the US and EU carrying the rest of the world on their backs.

Hello there, I have a certain finger pointing right atcha, and it's not the index finger.   Take a hike, loser.

Leaving work soon, so I'll just post this to get some comments to read later

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

State of Fear was debunked almost 5 years ago but people keep dredging up the same old crap time and time again.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/michael-crichtons-state-of-confusion/

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/02/06/checking_crichtons_footnotes/

I guess like Brad says it all boils down to a matter of faith. I prefer to put my faith in peer reviewed articles, authored by acknowledged, credentialed and experienced experts in the field that are published in reputable journals.

I also put my faith in the fact that “An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. Some organisations hold non-committal positions.”

Even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists acknowledges AGW exists and simply argues against “the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_consensus

However if you want to put your faith in a climate skeptic whose only qualification is that he’s a former TV weatherman that as far as anyone can tell never graduated from college then by all means the choice is yours.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts

I look forward to seeing the "debunking".

Most of the "debunking" you get on left-wing sites like RealClimate.org really wrest on one person's opinion versus another.

In the case of what we have here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

This is pretty serious.  If the raw temperature data is being monkeyed with like this, then it casts doubt on the whole movement.

I don't really feel that strongly on this issue except that they're trying to use it as an excuse for the government to confiscate more money from its citizens in the name of the green religion.

The petroleum industry is in agreement with global warming because the petroleum industry decided you were too dumb to not buy into it.  Surprise, a trillion dollar industry got something right!  It shouldn't be surprising that the same liberal arts college graduates that work for them aren't being prevented from joining the chorus of idiots.

Where the population goes, business must follow.  It's either join you or die in the fallout when nothing goes wrong with the political games and they succeed in fucking the world into a depression that makes the last one look like a joke.  They have the best chances of mitigating the catastrophic damage to their industry if they can get their fingers in the cookie jar directly.  If that crap stuck in congress passes, they'll be trying to use all that land they have sewn up to sell carbon credits instead of drilling for oil.  Being able to and being barred from doing so is just one line in a bill.

You should really get over your worship of scientists, college doesn't make someone smart.  If it did, fortune five hundred companies wouldn't be built by highschool dropouts and run into the ground by Harvard MBA's.  If even ten percent of them have bothered to check for themselves before signing onto it, I'll be very surprised.  Stupidity is cured by screwing up, something they'll eventually realize they've done with the world as a stage.

Lose...

He is citing the sources. He's writing entire books trying to explain why citing fiction books by a former weatherman is not a good source.

and yet he cant tell me how we've based the end of the world (that is a billion years old) as we know it based on a few centuries worth of what is sketchy data at best

Learn to read

Is it impossible to mine and/or destroy a mountain that's 100 million years old? Does the age of something really affect our ability to damage it?