Global warming--undefeated, untied and unscored upon

What mystifies me even more is how on earth you could construct a study model that would fail to include papers published in peer review literature by prominent skeptical scientists between 1993 and 2003, the period of her original story. I find it hard to believe [Naomi Oreskes] could have missed these papers by accident. Since she was the strategy expert informing the political movement on the dastardly tactics of the skeptics, surely she would have known that several of them were publishing in the peer-reviewed literature. How could she have missed them--unless she was trying to? Here is a very incomplete list of papers she missed found on a quick (5 minute) search at Scirus.com...

There is No Frakking "Scientific Consensus" on Global Warming: Time Magazine's Controversial Glacier Expert

...how could a document produced by an activist group be cited as proof of anything? Would it be remotely appropriate for the IPCC to use a document created by an oil company as the sole basis for dramatic statements about future events?

Bill Gates: Why We Need Innovation, Not Insulation

If CO2 reduction is important [does Gates really believe in the global warming hoax?], we need to make it clear to people what really matters -- getting to zero.

The real holes in climate science : Nature News

Like any other field, research on climate change has some fundamental gaps, although not the ones typically claimed by sceptics. Quirin Schiermeier takes a hard look at some of the biggest problem areas.

The e-mails leaked [there's that word again: leaked, not "stolen"?] from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in November presented an early Christmas present to climate-change denialists.
...
Researchers say it is difficult to talk openly about holes in understanding. "Of course there are gaps in our knowledge about Earth's climate system and its components, and yes, nothing has been made clear enough to the public," says Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeller at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and one of the moderators and contributors to the influential RealClimate blog. "But this climate of suspicion we're working in is insane. It's really drowning our ability to soberly communicate gaps in our science when some people cry 'fraud' and 'misconduct' for the slightest reasons."
...
The sad truth of climate science is that the most crucial information is the least reliable.
...
Even with ongoing questions about the proxy data, the IPCC's key statement — that most of the warming since the mid-twentieth century is "very likely" to be due to human-caused increases in greenhouse-gas concentration — remains solid because it rests on multiple lines of evidence [like what, specifically?] from different teams examining many aspects of the climate system, says Susan Solomon, the former co-chair of the IPCC team that produced the 2007 physical science report and a climate researcher with the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Boulder, Colorado.

"The IPCC's team of scientists," she says, "would not have said that warming is unequivocal based on a single line of evidence — even if came from Moses himself."