The concern for protecting the livelihood of working people and the poor in developing nations is legitimate, but I can't help but feel like climate change skeptics take that political, non-scientific statement as a scientific principle around which they try to build up "evidence" used to question the reality of climate change, and therefore to undermine the entire discourse around action related to the issue. These skeptics are saying: "I'm politically opposed to cap-and-trade; now here is evidence that the problem necessitating cap-and-trade might not even be real." But the science-policy continuum obviously has to run the other way. In other words, skepticism of global warming needs to be purely scientific. With conservatives, the skepticism is too politically tainted to be seen as credible by most scientists. Hence, the kind of disgust displayed by the scientists in the leaked emails. I will always be concerned with and opposed to withholding scientific research, as they did, but I can sympathize with the frustration felt by the climatologists out of East Anglia.

And speaking of withholding scientific research, Johnny suggests a very good point: the last administration had an abominable track record on suppressing scientific research and EPA reports, not just on global warming but on other environmental concerns as well. A few nasty (and out-of-context) emails from otherwise totally credible scientists is nothing like the Bush administration's political tampering with EPA opinion (I'm thinking specifically of the suppression of the 2007 endangerment report). You say the left isn't concerned with the Anglia emails, and that might be unfortunately true. But be honest, how concerned were you with Bush's EPA machinations four years ago?

What is going to bring you guys around to protecting the planet for future generations? I've read columns that you all have written about liberals putting the burden of our debt on our grandchildren. If you continue to champion climate change denial, nothing gets done, and even the most minimal of predicted catastrophes ensue, I hope you have a fun time explaining to your grandchildren what side of history you were on.

"Most climate scientists today argue that the earth's temperature is rising, and nearly all of those agree that human activity is likely to be a prime or at least significant cause. But a vocal minority dispute one or both of those views."

I'm still with the vast majority of scientists.

Amazing stuff! Maybe now we can drill for our own oil or build a refinery for the first time in thirty years.

This shows real malevolence, as opposed to simply bias toward AGW. All scientists try to portray their work as important, and hypothesizing a connection to AGW is a way to elevate one's otherwise boring work to the level of international politics, but this is really outrageous.