Cicero, I think you've got your mind set on an opinion, serviced to your own political ideology, and nothing is going to change it, not even mounds of data. I am an engineer so I do know about science, I am fluent in the logistics of data collection, and what I'm seeing does indeed point to the consensus conclusion. If you're not willing to take the conclusion of a metereologist (and one of our own at that), we're just going to have to leave it at that.
Let me give you a little dose of common sense. Something that people tend to lose when they bloat. If Hannity had any real sense of business he would have just promoted his website in a manner appealing to those he would like to see promote him further. IF he would have just layed out his ideas on what he was trying to build and left is at that, he would have been much better off today.
Perhaps you can explain a few things about the global warming data collection models to me, then:
1) If the Earth is on the order of 4.5 billion years old, how can we draw meaningful conclusions about long term geologic/climatic trends based on 100 years worth of data?
2) Given the complexity of the global climatic system (a system that is far from being fully understood even by "scientists" for whom it is a speciality), how is it possible to isolate the human factor in any warming trend, however transitory?
My point is this: I don't necessarily doubt that we are in the midst of a warming trend. The Earth, after all, is not static; it is in a constant state of flux. Even in recorded human history (which is itself a blip on the geologic time scale), we know that the climate of Western Europe has undergone significant changes. One need only read a few Roman or Greek historians to know this.
However, what concerns me about the pseudo-science of environmentalist climatology is that it over-reaches. It attempts to draw conclusions that are not possible on the basis of the evidence. For example, "...given current warming trends over a 100 year period, global sea levels will rise and engulf coastal cities by the year 2050..." or "...warming has accelerated since the advent of the industrial age, therefore we know that man is causing dangerous destabilization in the global climate..." Could these things be true? Absolutely. Is there any way to know if they are true based on current evidence or science? Absolutely not.
Again, I'm not saying that there isn't a 100-year, 200-year, or even 2000-year warming trend going on. There may well be. I am saying that we cannot know how this is happening, why this is happening, or how it will end based on current data models. Period.
As for the politics of the matter, I find it dangerous in the extreme to base public policy on pseudo-science. It is an attempt to bypass both common sense an the democratic process, the only two safeguards we have against authoritarianism.
If fossil based fuels are to blame for "Global Warming" please explain how major climate shifts took place BEFORE man ever invented the combustible engine. After all, the earth has been in and out of a few ice ages.
You keep talking about "mounds of data" but have you read "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg? It might change your mind. It's got tons of citations. Here is a man that is seen as a "McCarthy" in environmental circles.
Then there is always "Eco Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death" By Paul Dreissen.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11989
Patrick Moore, the Greenpeace co-founder is no longer involved with the "environmental movement".
“The environmental movement I helped found has lost its objectivity, morality and humanity."
– Patrick Moore, Greenpeace co-founder
Don't forget, at the heart of every "environmental movement" is SOCIALISM. Would you be surprised to know that HITLER was an environmentalist and for "animal rights"? Not surprising since he was a socialist.
Do you think that we should adopt the Kyoto Protocol??