The claims against anthropogenic global warming skeptics are often the same: they're all shills for big oil or other industry wishing to poke holes in the 'consensus theory' of global warming (which isn't a consensus at all). Under the so-called "politicization of science" program, George Soros' (the favorite fundraiser of many democrats) has reportedly given as much as $720,000 to Hansen to help package his alarmist claims and get them pushed by the mainstream media (The Soros Threat to Democracy):

How many people, for instance, know that James Hansen, a man billed as a lonely "NASA whistleblower" standing up to the mighty U.S. government, was really funded by Soros' Open Society Institute , which gave him "legal and media advice"?

Following in the footsteps of Newsweek Magazine, and CNN's Miles O'Brien's recent claim that the debate is over, NBC News further degraded the global warming debate this evening. In a report on global warming "deniers", Ann Thompson declared the debate over anthropogenic global warming "over".

In a segment that was spun against skeptics from the start (including the requisite repeated referral to those who question the human impact on climate change by using the derogatory and historically-loaded "deniers" label), Patrick Michaels was given just a few seconds of air time to point out a primary tenet of skeptics: while the Earth is indeed likely warming, the human connection cannot be quantified. But from there, the segment took the usual left turn, immediately vilifying the "deniers".

Could it possibly be that the mainstream school of thought surrounding climate change has it all wrong? While the media continues its love-fest with the alarmist non-scientists like Al Gore, climatologists and other atmospheric scientists continue research that may turn the conventional wisdom on its head. The author offers a great opening abstract of his research:

The mud at the bottom of B.C. fjords reveals that solar output drives climate change - and that we should prepare now for dangerous global cooling

Earlier this year, I examined the connections between solar variability and climate change in great detail (On Solar Variability and Global Warming). Further research into the sunspot activity and terrestrial climate change is revealing some astounding correlations, as published recently by the Financial Times: Read the Sunspots. Written by R. Timothy Patterson, the chief researcher of the project, the article starts out by summarizing the well-known and universally-accepted variability of the Earth's climate nicely:

Here we go again...another forecast for an "exceptionally active" hurricane season. Last spring, similar forecasts were touted following the horrific 2005 hurricane season. But what went largely unreported regarding last year's hurricane season was how quiet it ended up being and how horribly incorrect those forecasts were. Obviously we have yet to know how accurate this year's forecasts will be; only time will tell. At least a few big names are going on record as forecasting another busier-than-average season. I would imagine this will grab plenty of headlines over the coming days:

Answer: When you're a NASA scientist who has repeatedly ignored policies you agreed to upon employment with said agency and you'd like to gain more headlines by claiming you've been silenced. Newspapers, magazines, and TV newscasts are lit up with Gore's senate testimony today...but the global warming hearing testimony actually began on Monday.

The name James Hansen was splashed across headlines worldwide last month when he claimed to have been muzzled by the Bush administration. After being denied the opportunity to complete an interview with NPR (such limitations are apparently standard practice by NASA and other government agencies) Hansen claimed the Bush administration was attempting to silence his alarmist viewpoints on global warming. Upon questioning Monday in Washington DC, it was revealed that the NASA employee had already completed over a thousand media interviews prior to the NPR request (emphasis mine throughout):

Crossposted from Notes in the Margin

The "stranded polar bear" photo continues to grab headlines, even after yet another thorough debunking. In what has become the furry, cuddly symbol of all that is wrong with the climate change debate, the now ubiquitous photo was splashed across news pages worldwide, with captions such as this from the Daily Mail (click for article and image):

They cling precariously to the top of what is left of the ice floe, their fragile grip the perfect symbol of the tragedy of global warming.

See more articles with the same specious claims here, here, and the NYTimes version with photo caption correction appended here.

There was just one problem: the photograph was taken not of polar bears "stranded" on ice - far from it.

Just how crazy, you ask? Think of the wackiest global warming "fix" you can imagine. Then compile as many of those crazy ideas as you can and you'll have this AP wire report: Crazy ideas to combat global warming.

If anyone had any doubts how nuts the media has gone over global warming, let this article put those doubts to rest:

Crazy-sounding ideas for saving the planet are getting a serious look from top scientists, a sign of their fears about global warming and the desire for an insurance policy in case things get worse.

How crazy?