Here's the thing that strikes me as utterly bizarre. Almost any other subject I can think of, if someone is proclaiming their superior knowledge when it runs against that which is received and understood (i.e established authorities), without any basis or relevant expertise they are cranks. Yet on climate change, every Tom, Dick and Harry is an expert as long as he has one or two 'experts' he can cite.
I do modeling and simulations for a living. The entire basis for "Global Warming" are climate... models and simulations. Models and simulations that * DON'T * model water vapor accurately, (and since that is over 90% of the greenhouse effect on earth, thats a problem....), * DON'T * model phytoplankton behavior except as a gross simplification, (and since thats the largest biomass on Earth, and the biggest converter of CO2 into oxygen, and one of the 7 major carbon sinks in Earth's carbon economy, that's a problem....), when run backwards * DON'T * match the historical record... well, lets just put it this way - when MY simulations show trucks killing tanks with .50 calibur fire, I don;t go running to Washinton telling them we need to replace our M1 Abrahms tanks with trucks with .50 calibure guns.... I go to work helping find out what's screwed up in the database. Garbage in, garbage out - and Global Warming is garbage.
Google searching for points against climate change requires actually ignoring large amounts of rebuttals or contrary established scientific sources. Huge amounts. To reject climate change actually requires rejecting huge amounts of scientific literature.
No body rejects climate change. Climate is constantly changing - has since before Man occupied this dirtball, will long after he is gone. There is LEGITIMATE disagreement as to the DEGREE of the change, the HARMFULNESS of the change, and the extent, if any, that man's activities are causing the change. BTW, science isn't democracry - its no tthe number of people that agree with you that matters - its the consistant repeatability of testable hypothesis that matter. THAT is the exact opposite of the "it's settled science, anyone who disagrees should be thrown out" attitude that the true believers are displaying. In science - NOTHING is ever "settled", and EVERYTHING is to be tested and questioned. In high school, they didn't just TELL us the acceleration of gravity, they MADE US VERIFY IT experimentally.
Some of the people that are cited here have a certain authority and that is not to be taken lightly. But to continue to insist that they are the only valid sources and to ignore and dismiss all others when you yourself have no expertise with which to judge the validity of what they are saying is to risk being a crank. Especially if you think this is some giant conspiracy as many seem to do.
When you want ME to compromise my nation's (and mine as well) economy and standard of living, you darn well better come up with major, uncontestable, so-simple-even-a-child-can-understand, irrefutable PROOF of why - anthropogenic global warming claims to have done that - in my sight it has not. The ONLY semi-accurate way to take the Earth's temperature as a WHOLE is via satellite IR observations - 25 years of data is NOT ENOUGH to trend a phenomenon like climate.