I really don't give a d@mn where the money comes from on either side of the equation, I only care about the technical arguments and the data. A very great deal of that "debunking" doesn't state any appreciable technical basis and, therefore, relies almost totally on the reader's tendency to submit to the implied authority of the writer. Sixteenth century cartography and whaling together indicate that the Arctic had LESS ice in it than the 2007 melt season for an extended period... what do you do with that plain fact?
And NEVER in all of that debunking does there arise any mention of some of the newest and latest discoveries that we've made about Earth-Sun linkages like this:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/30oct_ftes.htm
...or the effects of the variances in solar wind pressure (down ~20% these last few years below anything we've ever known since precise records have been kept) upon our atmosphere as a whole--that's huge, by the way.
No, sorry... if you folks can't see the patently obvious fact that the proposed solutions for AGW by some strange coincidence happen to be identical to what you'd do if you were trying to power down the planet due to Peak Oil, then there's just no hope for you. Peak Oil IS a mathematically provable reality with undeniable precedence (oil production in the US).
Peak Oil used to be taboo in the main stream media but now it's beginning to be mentioned more and more. Recognized. Accepted. Acknowledged, and now known to be inevitable. Actually, it's never been in dispute--just the timing. Most seem to have wanted to put it out there many decades beyond Hubbert's original VERY educated guesstimate. Unfortunately, that's just not going to be the case: it's now, and you're staring at it full in the face--that's the economic destruction that you've been seeing
and it will continue to see worsen with time. Now, it's going to seem like it's unravelling in slow motion over the next few years, but eventually its full effects are going to become undeniably clear.
