'Academic embarrassment': Prof. Jon Krosnick Exposed for 'faulty' climate polls -- 'Skewed, propagandized and presented intellectually dishonest and shallow polling analysis' (Krosnick@Stanford.edu) | Climate Depot

For Krosnick to try to pull this low-brow tactic of combining climate and environment as though the public treats them identical, reveals that he is either ignorant of wealth of recent polls or he is deliberately trying to con the public and his own Stanford University.
...
The poor professor has not only been caught apparently manipulating data, but his methods have now been exposed for the entire world to see. Krosnick's academic integrity has now been elevated to the level of the “used car salesman” tactics of the UN IPCC and the Climategate professors.

Shame on you, Mr. Krosnick.

Is global warming the civil rights issue of the 21st century? – Religion - CNN.com Blogs

Cizik was recently a leader in the National Association of Evangelicals, a powerful, 68-year-old conservative group. When Cizik tried to convince the NAE to take a public stand on global warming, he was booted from the association, according to Paul Rogat Loeb, author of “Jesus and Climate Change - The Journey of Rich Cizik.”
...
Cizik now calls climate change “the civil rights issue of the 21st century.”

Is he right? Will the evangelical leaders who question global warming look one day like some evangelical leaders who stood silent while marchers were beaten in the streets during the civil rights movement? Or should religious leader stay out of the scientific debate on global warming?

Who’s the Climate Expert Here? - Ecocentric - TIME.com

So how is the average person, or the average reporter, who can't read scientific papers him- or herself, supposed to figure out whom to listen to?

That's the very reasonable question William Anderegg, a biology graduate student at Stanford, and several colleagues put to themselves a year or so ago—and the answer is being published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The bottom line: of 200 top climate researchers in the world, only about 2.5% qualify as “UE”—that is, Unconvinced by the Evidence for human-caused climate change. Which means that 97.5% agree with the general conclusions of the IPCC.

How Andregg et. al. decided what constitutes a “top climate researcher” is laid out in detail in their paper; basically, it involves how many papers about climate science each published in peer-reviewed journals—not only the number of papers each published, but the number of times those papers were cited by other researchers.

Keith Olbermann's Wisdom - WSJ.com

The administration currently in power is committed to liberal ideology--to the notion that "government" is the solution to every problem. Faced with two actual crises--one economic, the other ecological--the administration has been ineffective and directionless. Meanwhile, it has poured great energy into remaking the country to deal with problems that are either far less urgent or nonexistent, such as health care and global warming.