kluge

Fundingfather, regarding: I'll accept it as your position on the matter. Regarding the collection of "prominent scientists" propped up by Sen. Inhofe - do you ever check this stuff out? A quick random sampling of the "experts" on the list you linked to gave me the usual results (all comments from Wikipedia):

Zbigniew Jaworowski:
Jaworowski published several papers (Jaworowski, 2007; Jaworowski, 1999; Jaworowski, 1997) in 21st Century Science and Technology, a non-refereed magazine published by Lyndon LaRouche.[4]

Jaworowski has also written that the movement to remove lead from gasoline was based on a "stupid and fraudulent myth," and that lead levels in the human bloodstream are not significantly affected by the use of leaded gasoline.

David J. Bellamy OBE (born 18 January 1933): In 2004, he wrote an article in the Daily Mail in which he described the theory of man-made global warming as "poppycock" [4]. A letter he published in New Scientist (16 April 2005) asserted that a large percentage (555 of 625) of the glaciers being observed by the World Glacier Monitoring Service were advancing, not retreating. George Monbiot of The Guardian tracked down Bellamy's original source for this information and found that it was Fred Singer's website. Singer claimed to have obtained these figures from a 1989 article in the journal Science, but to date this article has not been found.[5] Bellamy has since admitted that the figures on glaciers were wrong, and announced in a letter to The Sunday Times on 29 May 2005 [6] that he had "decided to draw back from the debate on global warming"

Ján Veizer, born in Slovakia, is an emeritus professor.

In short, the usual sampling of crackpots and retired guys getting a last shot of celebrity by making "bold, contrarian" pronouncements that they've got no science to back up but which are guaranteed to get them smirking applause from the denier claque.

ag54, what separates me from Barrons is that I assess the legitimacy of information provided to me based on the qualifications, peer reviewed studies, and research performed by the scientists involved. Barrons simply repeats anything which is published by anyone which is anti-climate change theory - without even reading it to see if the article actually makes the statement he asserts, which is frequently not the case.

I've got no ideological reason to want the answer be one thing or the other. I'd very much prefer anthropomorphic climate change theory to be wrong. If it were proven wrong (by real scientists, using real data from real research) tomorrow, that would be a cause of great joy. We have benefited greatly from the ability to use cheap fossil fuel energy for the past 100 years. It would be really cool if we could continue. I wouldn't have to worry about what to do with spent nuclear reactor fuel; bird kills from windmills, siltation behind hydro dams, etc. We could just burn more coal. But if the scientific consensus on climate change isn't somehow miraculously all wrong, by ignoring it we're royally screwing our children and grandchildren's generation. The cost of that irresponsibility will be borne by them, not by my generation.

I personally think that people who choose to ignore the scientific consensus are immature and selfish. They don't want to deal with the consequences of what science is telling us in a responsible manner - they want a free lunch. But they're dining at the expense of future generations. So you'll pardon me if I'm less than impressed with their "brave" poses of "intellectual skepticism" based on wishful thinking and crackpot theories. It's easy to be a contrarian when it means you get to eat a lunch that someone else will have to pay for.