"Stated briefly, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about."

"It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is."

It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest.

Professor Richard Lindzen, via Instapundit, who compares the global warming hysteria to Y2K.

ADDED: "Why the Climate Skeptics Are Winning/Too many of their opponents are intellectual thugs."

The Gleick episode exposes again a movement that disdains arguing with its critics, choosing demonization over persuasion and debate. A confident movement would face and crush its critics if its case were unassailable, as it claims.