The al gore crowd continuously proclaims, as you do, that the debate over the science is over. How narrow minded of your side. Sounds like the schoolyard kid who doesn’t like the teams that were picked so he’s going to take his ball and go home. The science they use to make their point is hand picked from all of the evidence available. Gore pompously announced in his infamous fantasy film that whenever CO2 has risen in history, the temperatures have followed and he dramatically illustrates the point with a spectacular graph displayed on a huge screen. Hit the pause button and zoom in on that chart. You will notice that the CO2 curve LAGS the temperature curve. Besides uncovering the e-mails with their incriminating content (which the officials have not said were not real) look at the actions of other nations and experts. Spain has removed subsidies for wind energy and the industry has nearly ground to a halt there as a result. Germany just announced they would cut subsidies for solar power because it is just not cost effective. The IPCC has admitted to India that some glacial studies need to be redone because of error although they also announce a new study would not change their minds. Some power plants in Europe have switched back to coal. Recent studies show that magma is actively moving under Antarctica in places such as Erebus and perhaps others. Military sensors that can be accessed on the Internet are recording ice growth but the media only reports when an iceberg is formed after breaking off a glacier. A process that has continued for millions of years. A satellite that was supposed to provide better evidence on the topic was destroyed in a rare rocket failure not long ago. However, Congress refuses to fund a project to rebuild the craft. No sir, the debate is far from over. It is more a question of having the free opportunity to openly hear both sides of an argument rather than listed to rhetoric of those that would trample free speech and declare that dissenters can only rely upon a single source for information while thousands of scientists support the GW theory. That ignores the tens of thousands of scientists and meteorologists that differ based upon their STUDIES.

Can the anonymous voice above please post evidence that supports the assertion that the science is handpicked? Would this include what Svante Arrhenius found out at the end of the nineteenth century? Or the thousands of research papers since?
For any readers not enamored by the propaganda of "Not a Lone Voice" you can find a good explanation of the multiple inputs to global warming in the past. Start with Milankovitch cycles, work through CO2 outgassing, then into the physics of the heat trapping properties of CO2 leading to FURTHER warming as part of a positive feedback loop.
I don't know about the assertions of the actions Spain and Germany are taking regarding subsidies but take the statements by the entity with a grain of salt until evidence is presented (or not). The rest of this entities post is a series of vague overblown rhetorical nonsense as well, right down to the unsupported assertions about "thousands of scientists and meteorologists that differ based upon their studies". This would probably lead back to the debunked nonsense from OISM, run by a couple of cranks in the woods of Oregon.
Show sources moron!

Here's something to throw into the mix:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121170717.htm

You have precisely made my point, Mark, with your arguments. You picked a few comments to support your disagreement with me and failed to do the most rudimentary research on your own. I really don’t have time nor is there space here to make a comprehensive argument by providing a complete set of sources. However, here are a few that were easily found using Google as a search engine. I am using these as only examples and you should do your own research rather than take my word or those of the IPCC. NASA released a report that mentions that the data exists showing data supporting ice growth is real but then says the data is misleading. Further in the scientific report, the author admits that there is little melting or warming activity on the East side of Antarctica and then adds the word YET. I would not thing that an person with a scientific background would have added such a word in a serious report. The report delves further to discredit those that argue GW is a conclusion drawn with too little comprehensive data and discusses the West side of Antarctica. Studies have shown the Ocean temperatures on that side have slightly increased and as a result, the ice shelves are melting from the bottom, which adds stress to the ice and they are breaking up. Some of the breakups have been rather spectacular. Once these ice shelves have broken free, the glaciers behind them have indeed measured and increased movement toward the Ocean. While he does not say for certain, he hints that GW must be the cause. Nowhere does the author even suggest there might be another cause. Go to www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html to read the NASA report. There are references for additional resources at the end of the report. The Science Daily is a news outlet for nearly any scientific activity. They keep the reporting non-commercial and will report either side of a discussion. That is the point, it allows discussion by the scientific community. A report in March 2008 discusses the volcanic activity that is believed to be taking place beneath the ice in Antarctica and how it could result in just the phenomena now observed. Only a few studies are taking place for the tectonic activity under the ice but the evidence that it exists is clearly there. To go www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080229183818.htm to review the article. Finally, I noticed you decided to discredit the OISM as an organization “run by a couple of cranks in the woods of Oregon.” First, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine is a pretty well known organization with a decent history. Let’s look at the cranks to see who they are. Professor Martin D. Kamen discovered Carbon 14 and many of the techniques used in medicine today for radioactive tracers in biochemistry and molecular biology. He has been presented with a number Professor Arthur B. Robinson co-founded the institute in 1981. Before that, he cofounded the well known Linus-Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine in 1973. While he has many accomplishments in the medical research field, he is perhaps best known for his work in developing home-schooling curriculums and work with the Federal Emergency Management Agency. There are a number of distinguished people that work at the institute and I doubt very much they would risk the private funding of their organization to fake the currently signed 31,486 American scientists, 9,029 that hold PhD degrees. All of the signers are listed on the petition’s website so any person can easily see who has taken the stand.