While you seem pretty reasoned (or at least one that can be talked to which is why I have been), and I do honestly appreciate the links and suggested reading you are providing for me, you need to read better. I am anything but “partisan” – in fact I think those who are should get a clue (that could be due to my one class short of adding a Poly-Sci major to my undergrad degree, so yes, I have some rather developed opinions on politics in this country, and I have followed such sense I was very young, I find our system very interesting). Neither party is exactly a bastion of morality. I am also anything but “settled” in my thinking, rather have stated numerous times I am still in the process of reading and sorting and thinking on it. So far I think there is some good stuff in AGW. I also, at this point, think it has overplayed its hand. What conclusion I end up drawing should not construed as a personal matter to anyone else – it will be my own opinion. That’s how thinking works, and it is also how this country works. Part of why we have a vibrant, dynamic system.

What I have stated I am in opposition to is the so called solutions, and I think Interpol’s recent revelations on just how well carbon trading is working for organized crime should indicate that some of us who understand how things work out in the “real world” have legitimate reasons to think the ideas are a joke. I also think we had best get real on our “acceptable” options, as for other reasons we are going to be forced to adjust our energy infrastructure regardless. While I would love for solar, wind and such to be the “silver bullet”, such is not the case. How much I know about those areas may surprise you – we are actively involved with wind (they have proposed 30+ windmills on our farm, so we obviously have a vested interest in understand that area). One of my wife’s best friends is also the holder of numerous patents in fuel cell and such technology. So while hopeful about the prospects, we are also very aware of the limitations.

I have actually not provided any “analysis” other then I think the refusal to accept conflicting opinions (on all most any topic in Wikipedia) any more is a huge problem. I also pointed out this is what the public is seeing, and many of them can connect the dots – regardless of if anyone thinks they are connecting them correctly or not. As to my understanding of how people think – well, it could be because I am regularly in contact with 100’s of people from all sorts of walks of life from several states. Most know little about me other then what work I do for their employers, thus I get to hear untarnished opinions on many things as mostly I just listen and rarely try to “correct” or sway their thoughts. Try it some time, might be an eye opener to many. My wife’s work allows me to gain even more insight into how people are thinking (though there it is mostly from the upper level of society as most with anything less than very close to or exceeding 7 figure net worth wouldn’t really have a use for what she does – in contrast to my contacts who tend to be from every strata and political leaning). Sorry if you don’t like where they get info from, but such is the way things are. None of them “trust” much at the moment. Many, if not most, are out right cynical at this point. Do not mistake what gets back to me which I state here as “my” opinion.

Yes, I have read the “BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change”. I am also reading many of the more scientific papers (time permitting). I realize there is mostly agreement – but I am also noticing many who have previously been very silent seem to be starting to feel it is safe enough (as in not career ending) to actually say something other than general agreement. We will see what that leads to over the coming months. I fully endorse, and think most my posts would indicate, that I agree whole heartedly with the last couple paragraphs.

I have little good to say about the U.N. other then I guess having one is very slightly better than not having one. They have done a few things that are of note and helped greatly, but mostly they fail in surprisingly huge ways. If the U.N. is your idea of a hopeful future I just am not sure what to say.

The 3rd link you sent sought to discredit wikipedia through proxy by disparaging a history professor, Naomi Oreskes. The author of the article lies about a lack of consensus by way of his own personal anecdote: “I myself have profiled dozens of truly world-eminent scientists whose work casts doubt on the Gore-U.N. version of global warming.”

Is this your idea of thoughtful analysis?

Despite the author’s incredulity, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have are at a consensus that the evidence for AGW is compelling.

The rest of the National Review article is hearsay and conjecture.

I’d be happy to discuss the original article published in Science with you, but you must first read it!

“Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change”

Your belief that the public’s view of scientists in part hinges on the accountability of wikipedia is in need of something besides more biased anecdotes. Alternatively, it’s as simple as wikipedia siding with the science on topics conservatives don’t like, which is why that joke of a website conservepedia exists.

I’ll take a look at the other link later.

Actually no – it was sent to me last night\sometime yesterday (didn’t pull e-mail down until very late). I note today it seems to be posted over on WUWT too, so I likely would have stumbled upon it later today or Monday even without being pointed to the article by a friend. I have friends from the far, far left all the way to the far, far right – as I’ve stated, I like and enjoy all the varied thinking and one who is open minded may at times be surprised from which side an unexpected insight is given from…

Are you supporting such conduct? Do you think such helps, or do you acknowledge it hurts?

I try to let such not affect my thinking (it does make me very mad that such happens – it’s part of why Wikipedia has lost any respectability – happens in a lot of areas, but this is truly extreme, even for there), and I continue studying and reading – but as I said, if you want to know why the public is walking away it is behavior such as that.

For us it just means my answer to my wife’s question about giving them a donation last week went from a soft “no, they have too many issues with thought police taking over stuff – but if you want to, well, whatever” to a “not a chance, and until they fix this kind of stuff don’t even ask me again”.

BTW, bringing up “Republicans” only serves to further hurt your case and more firmly establish in the court of public opinion that the whole AGW hysteria really *is* nothing but a massive leftist political scam.

Conservapedia.

So.. you are saying what? If I lived in Denmark I would pay more in TAXES, 2 1/2 times as much for gas, and I wouldn’t waste water? And you believe it to be a great ecconomy?

I love Denmark… It is a beutiful country.. But.. I wouldn’t want/be able to afford living there.

Sorry…

This is exactly the approach that physicist Shirley Jackson (currently president of Renssaeler Polytechnic Institute, formerly head of the Nuclear Energy Commission during much of the Clinton administration) advocates. She thinks that with newer technologies, it is possible to reduce substantially the amount of disposable radioactive waste by recycling most of it in state-of-the-art nuclear power plants that have – or will be – built in France and other parts of Europe.

There is a solution to the waste disposal problem. Burn it in other nuclear plants. This is what the French are now doing, and the Japanese will be following suit. Yes, eventually there is a much smaller amount of waste that comes out the pipeline at the end, but that can be dealt with by using breeder reactors. Those were stopped in the US because of fear of nuclear terrorism, but is this not a matter of simply having proper security for such plants? The waste issue is not the issue in the end for nuclear power.

Part of why science is seriously losing its credibility in the eyes of the public, and some really, really bad behavior in regards to editing at Wikipedia…
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/18/370719.aspx

http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/ec/William+M.+Connolley

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjU1ZDBhOGExOWRlNzc5ZDcwOTUxZWM3MWU2Mjc5MGE=

This is the type of things that really make people who actually love science very, very mad. It also causes untold damage to what is generally viewed as a great place to go to begin learning about stuff.

I posted this in the last couple threads I’ve ingaged in because I think it is important to understand and see what has\is resulting from these so called “leaders”.

Despicable.