Well, I agree there is certainly a good amount of spin on both sides:

"Lindzen decried what he sees as the intellectual corruption that global warming alarmism has brought to climatology. He noted that many climatologists are happy to issue ambiguous statements that are then spun by activists into alarms. The result is increased funding for climate research, so no one publicly complains about the spinning. Most of the funding for climate research would not be there were it not for the global warming issue."

http://reason.com/archives/2009/03/09/among-the-global-warming-skept

I do not believe there is enough scientific data to support AGW. "No statistcially significant global warming in the past 15 yeas" is a very damning set of scientific data against AGW. There are just too many uncertainties and unknowns for anyone to pin warming on anything specific. I'm not about to hand over my freedoms without a fight because some pathological liar like Algore stands to benefit.

Gore has invested heavily in carbon-offset markets, electric vehicles, and other ventures that would profit handsomely from legislation curbing the use of fossil fuels, and is reportedly poised to become the world’s first “carbon billionaire.’’

The fact that you've thrown that quote around numerous times just shows how you have that quote just saved in your clipboard ready for pasting in any post, yet you haven't put any effort into actually understanding what was meant by it otherwise you'd know what its meaning really was.

Phil Jones merely says that the time frame that is looked at when looking at the last 15 years is not a time frame to be calling significant when it comes to looking at any sort of trend. For there to be any significance placed on a trend, you have to look at a much larger time frame. If you look at the trend that has been going on for the last 60+ years, then you'd see that warming is still occurring. The quote is taken out of context severly.

You'd be far more productive reading studies about recent warming trends as opposed to simply pasting the same quote over and over and taking it as scientific.

Part of the problem, and a major reason skepticism is persistent, is that data & analyses from other scientific disciplines with a bearing on climate research but which are not 'climatology' are pretty much rejected out of hand, if they in any way disagree with the AGW narrative that is.

It isn't that they're rejected because of their conclusions, it is that they're rejected because of poor science. Once it is rejected though, the scientist behind it calls out that it was rejected because of filtering or "discrimination". It's like you're calling for afirmative action for climate change skeptics or something.

And here I was thinking that skepticism in society persists because of the fact that there is more skepticism among media outlets than there is among scientists.

Great response, really.  You ignore nine year old information because a six year old monitoring system shows four years of decline.  Can you find a long term application of the never existed before satellite to back up the relevance of this new discovery of something that might have always been happening and might have only happened these particular four years?  Such a sound, scientific basis to decide the ice caps are melting because of CO2...

[quote]I'll stop using GISTEMP if and only if NASA GISS announces it to be unreliable. Until then it's a perfectly legitimate source.{/quote]

Because government agencies are so good at admitting their own mistakes, especially at the cost of their own funding...

Then you read the first question too.  Why are you supporting AGW again?  I know why Jones is, it's how he finds himself employed.  You don't have such a crass excuse for your viewpoint though.

Then we should outlaw modern civilization as a whole.  Second hand smoke dangers are well below background pollution levels from other sources.  That increase is for living with a smoker, walking past the smoker crowd going into the grocery store isn't even a thousandth the problem.  Cooking your food is more dangerous.  Someone else cooking their food is more dangerous too, that power generation to run the stovetops greatly surpasses it.

Life is not risk free, taking away free will in a futile attempt to make it so will lead to a police state before you get anywhere.

See the above, your accumulation of fractions of a percent risk increases are a minor addition to modern civilization.

Where did I say home property?  What is it with you commies?  OMG!!!  It's a business instead of a home, kill the owner!

If I own a restaurant, it's my property.  Who the hell gives you the right to tell me what I can and can't do simply because you're allowed to enter my property, of your own volition, and barter for the services I'm offering, also of your own volition?  You choose to shop/eat/whatever at any private business you frequent.

Lindzen works at MIT.  His research is almost entirely government funded.

The periods have gaps, and warming trends predate industrialization.  Jones is also taking his own information out of context.  He made significant mistakes in his rationalization.  His claim that solar output can't account for it is false.  There are multiple proxies for measuring solar output, cosmogenic isotope production has been steadily increasing, in contrast with the sunspot record that shows a relatively flat output level for the term.  You only get a flat level for solar output when you assume, and almost surely incorrectly, that sunspots are a singular aspect for determining output with no other variables.

Edit: Tard can't type...

That's pretty funny, since it's not from Brietbart, only via.

You have a thing for not liking the messenger.  I've seen those vids before.  Your logic has to be pretty twisted for that to be considered 'racist' behavior.

That's enough for me.

Doesn't seem to take much to close your mind.  But we knew that, I guess.

Ahh, the forgiveness of the modern bleeding heart liberal.  Cracker freaks out in an all black dorm and he's banned from life, for life...

I suppose you'll insist indefinitely that video tape evidence is just a bunch of white lies to get rid of black people?  Not that I mind really, it's sort of par for the course with you.

Edit:  I have to issue a retraction...

Barring someone finding the actual journal text, I failed miserably in my attempt, I've switched sides on the racist charge.  Too much is debunked or are unsubstantiated.  The youtube video of him donating money to abort black babies was a hit piece on PP, it violated their ethics rules to accept the donation.

Uh, Fox was given, and posted, the full, unedited video from at least one of them.  Do you get all your information from Salon.com or something?

From B'klyn ACORN cleared over giving illegal advice on how to hide money from prostitution

"Brooklyn prosecutors on Monday cleared ACORN of criminal wrongdoing after a four-month probe that began when undercover conservative activists filmed workers giving what appeared to be illegal advice on how to hide money."

"They edited the tape to meet their agenda," said the source.

From ACORN Report Finds No Illegal Conduct 

The independent report, by former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger finds:

"While some of the advice and counsel given by ACORN employees and volunteers was clearly inappropriate and unprofessional, we did not find a pattern of intentional, illegal conduct by ACORN staff; in fact, there is no evidence that action, illegal or otherwise, was taken by any ACORN employee on behalf of the videographers."

"The videos that have been released appear to have been edited, in some cases substantially, including the insertion of a substitute voiceover for significant portions of Mr. O'Keefe's and Ms. Giles's comments, which makes it difficult to determine the questions to which ACORN employees are responding. A comparison of the publicly available transcripts to the released videos confirms that large portions of the original video have been omitted from the released versions."

From Investigation Finds ACORN Didn't Break Laws

"A report commissioned by the House Judiciary Committee found ACORN, a community organizing group heavily criticized after an undercover video surfaced, has not violated any federal regulations."

"The study by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service found that ACORN correctly used all federal dollars it received and did not improperly register any voters during last year's presidential election."

Read the full report here.

So Acorn has been totally exonerated by three separate investigations two of which specifically mentioned that the videos have been heavily edited and at least one claimed that O'Keefe had refused to release unedited versions.

So it is proven that O'Keefe intentionally lied and mislead so even if what you say is true and he relented from his former position and released the unedited video to Fox then I need a bit more proof than his (and your) bare assertion that the tapes are valid. I would need them to be certified valid by either a police or prosecutor source before I would accept anything from O'Keefe as "unedited".