"Demonizing or ridiculing those that doubt the extent and cause of climate change has a chilling effect on free speech that makes open, rational debate almost impossible."

And Popular Tech says:  "Obviously the first one. Groupthink = Socialism.

Exactly, and exactly.  Isn't that the goal?  And they are winning, aren't they?

 If you have 100 scientists who think global warming is a real threat and 2 who don't, a typical media report will quote one person from each side of the controversy.

That's where your argument fell apart, the example of 100 vs 2 does not in any way reflect the difference of opinion in the scientific community on AGW.  There is no consensus.  Secondly, since when does the MSM present the issue of AGW in a fair and balanced way?  It doesn't by a long shot.  This is why dissenting scientists and Newsbusters are publicly speaking out and factually debunking AGW.  BTW- you should listen to yourself, you are actually advocating the censorship of ideas, Stalin would be proud. 

 Unfortunately, in this case the way science is presented in the media allows corporations with strong economic interests in preventing action on climate change to muddy the waters enough that many people feel justified in doing nothing

The more we hear about AGW and it's so called solutions, the more everyone, including the public realizes is it's not a scientific theory, it's a political ploy for Socialism.  The actions advocated by Hansen, Gore and the rest of the AGW cult is control of the public.  We will not be your puppets, you will not be allowed to pull our strings at your whims.  The onus is not on us to justify our actions or refusal to do as you demand, the onus is on you to prove what you assert.  You have failed to prove anything, and whats more, we have found the assertions you made to this point to be false.  Mann Hockey stick chart - false; 1998 hottest year in US - false; ocean levels rising - false;  CO2 significantly higher than late 1800's - false.  Your track record is plain, those who advocate AGW have lied, liars can not be believed. 

The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius

the media is generally owned by large corporations in the business of making money and have ultimate control over all those liberals involved in reporting and editorial decisions, don't they?  Or are those corporations just a front for liberals?

Your point is unclear.

If you are trying to say that because of corporate ownership, we should be looking for an overall conservative, corporate bias in the news, we would look and find nothing because, in actuality, the mainstream media covers the news with a decidedly liberal slant, as evidenced by the hundreds of posts here at NB.

So either the big, bad corporations which own the msm are very bad at giving instructions to their networks and newspapers or the ownership of the msm is irrelevant in terms of bias.

KPAJ,

Thanks for the feedback. FYI: Though MRC is in Virginia, I reside in Northern California. ns

Okay, here you go.  I'm staying up way past my bedtime to compile this stuff!

First of all, the 100 to 2 proportion was purely hypothetical.  My point could have been made just as well, better really, by using 100 skeptics and 2 "believers" as the example. 

But since I put a number out there, it's certainly your prerogative to ask me to defend it.  Here goes:

The only way I see of possibly convincing any of you is through primary sources, as you will simply discount any secondary sources I use as biased.

Naomi Oreskes (December 3, 2004 (Erratum January 21, 2005)). "Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". Science 306 (5702): 1686

This is the most cited recent attempt to gauge climate change consensus.  The author examined over 900 peer reviewed scientific articles on climate change, and found that 75% of them supported human-caused global warming.  25% took no position, and 0% disagreed.  Doing the math, this paper found 696 articles supporting global warming theory.

Since it was published, skeptics have complained that the key words used were too narrow.  One group hired a climate change skeptic to compile a bibliography of papers that show disagreement with major tenets of global warming theory.  Note that this bibliography was published three years later, and includes disagreement on many different aspects of global warming, not just the fundamental tenets.  Total articles found: 68.  The bibliography can be found on the website of Friends of Science (I love doublespeak!).

 So that's a 10 to 1 ratio, but of papers, not scientists.  Counting people is even harder.  The Oregon petition says it has over 17,000 signatures, which sounds like a lot.  Only a certain percentage of those are scientists, but even if you assume that they all have expert opinions, the number is dwarfed by the memberships of professional, scientific societies that have released statements endorsing global warming theory.  Even if we are extra generous and assume that only the barest majority of members agree with the statements released, we can stop right at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which represents 10 million scientists and teachers.  Not that there aren't many, many other examples.

Fundamentally, though, these lists are meaningless.  As someone else said, science isn't about consensus.  Science isn't, but public action is.  What persuades me, at the end of the day, is the mere fact that any scientists feel strongly enough about the issue to make these kinds of statements, statements that skeptical instinct rebels against.  Can you think of any other issue, ever, that has provoked such concern?  If they're worried, shouldn't we be worried too?