[Heat Miser]

"One can read reports such as listed at following site, to see where it can be shown that during the past 6000 years or so, there is evidence that it was warmer during the first half of the Holocene Climatic where surely mankind had little or no effect in increasing CO2 levels. http://www.co2science.org/scripts/Template/MainPage.jsp?Page=BrowseCatalogEnlarged&sProductCode=v8n37c2"

Of course co2science.org is going to disseminate propaganda claiming that there is nothing out of the ordinary going on...their on the take from Exxon-Mobil:
http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/nonprofits/center_for_the_study_of_carbon_dioxide_and_global_change.html
...and they collaborate with The George Marshall Institute who is also receiving giant checks from Big Oil:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=36

Any information provided by scientific foundations (whether it be from for-profit or non-profit orgs) needs to be taken with a wheel barrow full of salt if they are receiving money from industries who could care less about the environment. So if you're going to post links to examples that are furthering your point, at least do it from sites where money lines can't be traced.

[Heat Miser]

Goodness gracious...how could I have forgotten to include information on the author of the report, Patrick J. Michaels?
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=4

And while we're on the subject of people getting paid exorbitant amounts to further the particular viewpoints of fossil fuel industries...can anyone point me to any articles by drug dealers, telling us that crack is good for us?

[5OClock]

It's interesting how the pro-global warming folks reply with personal attacks on the authors instead of debating the science. The main argument is "follow the money", seemingly forgetting that argument works both ways.

If environmental scientists manage to convince people that we are on the verge of environmental catastrophe, the spending on environmental research will increase dramatically. Therefore environmental scientists have a financial stake in propagating environmental disaster scenarios. If you accept the argument that money from "Big Oil" means results that are biased against global warming theories, then you must accept the argument that money from pro-global warming groups means results that are biased toward global warming. I think either argument is overstated and irrelevant; if you simply debate the science, the source of funding will have no effect on your conclusions.

Please, just stick to debating the science.