[Climate realist/actor] Adam Baldwin (adamsbaldwin) on Twitter

@mechphisto Historically, which is more harmful to mankind: global warming, or global cooling?
It would take 67 years to mitigate 1 C warming.
@mechphisto Ur "faith in the preponderance of 'good' AGW science" ignores the economic cost of attempting to mitigate 'AGW/Climate Change'.
"To mitigate just 1C (2F) of warming, one must forego the emission of 2 trillion tons of CO2. The world emits just 30 billion tons a year.. about
@KurtSchlichter If AGW's "anything U want/need it 2 be!" Then it's 'magical thinking' used by godless hypocrites 2 accuse the God-fearing
@Xenaclone What legitimate, reliable data, if any, do you believe shows mankind affects earth's climate?
@AzureAngel17 Why do you think it reasonable to regress mankind's standard of living-by trimming emissions-based on fraudulent data/hoax?
The "Weather is not the same as Climate Change" meme is the last refuge of AGW scoundrels.

Alaskan hopes bike trek will raise awareness of climate change - Salt Lake Tribune

While skeptics, including members of the Utah Legislature, question climate change, Ross said it is all too obvious to Alaskans, who have seen polar bears drown because they couldn't swim the ever-widening stretches of water and shorelines wash away under more-intense storms. [How many Alaskans have seen polar bears drown?  If this number is greater than zero, how many have convincing evidence that the drowning was caused by carbon dioxide?]

[Fraudster] Al's Journal : A Disappointing Litmus Test

The idea that a rejection of science is a litmus test for Republican candidates is both incredibly disappointing and scary. No political party should require its members to reject fact as a prerequisite for electoral office.

- Bishop Hill blog - The IoP blog on the Nature trick

Take a look at this from Rasmus Benestad:

According to physicist Rasmus Benestad from the Norwegian Meteorological Institute and a blogger for realclimate.org, Jones’ reference to "hiding the decline" could have involved removing some tree-ring proxy data from the analysis after 1960 to produce a curve that agrees better with the evidence for global warming.

Throw out evidence that doesn't match your hypothesis? Can he really have said that?