Interesting discussion. I work in the field of computer modeling of nonlinear physical phenomena, although not in the particular field of climate modeling (my PhD is in physics). Every month or so I do a quick review of some of the literature concerning the climate debate.

Thank you, Ron, for a nice article on the subject of reporting dissent in science. I believe that, unintentionally, many of the commenters have supported your point by demonstrating a one-sided knowledge of the topic. For one example (of many), Neuro's statement that "the anti-global warming crowd tends to use outdated studies and cherry-picked data" is not only dead wrong in the main, but inverts a significant criticism often levied against many of the pro-AGW (anthropogenic global warming) crowd.

Likewise, the "follow the money" argument also is used without regard to its applicability to the funding of pro-AGW statements, such as the IPCC report, which was funded not as climate research, but as politically-motivated research intended to show AGW effects.

An additional comment may be warranted. It matters not whether one follows geneticist Dean Hamer's 'god gene' hypothesis, or more closely sympathizes with Pascal's theory (echoing Greek thought as well as St. Paul) of a "God-shaped vacuum' in each person: in many cases the commitment to anthropogenic global warming (AGW) as a dogma is quasi-religious in nature, and has the consequent demand to stifle or punish heresy. Ron, your article cautions against that fanaticism.

I suspect that both your history background and age assisted in your persepective. The ages are replete with alarms and crises which turn out not to be the case, but which can be used to motivate people. The historical record strongly advises a cautionary approach. As siempre notes, "[i]f you read the actual papers, not the journalism, the scientists with tenure and age are most circumspect...." BenK's note on systems biology and nonlinear processes is another excellent observation.

Oh, in the way of disclosure, my current employer benefits from alternative energy research, and I have worked on solar power projects, although none of my current projects are related to alternate energy sources.

Here are some of my current thoughts on the matter. (Always subject to change as I learn more.)

1. The earth has been more-or-less warming for the past 15,000 years or so (as the most recent ice age ended). Over the past couple of hundred million years or so, the earth has at times been significantly colder and significantly warmer than at present.
2. Over the past few millennia, the earth has at times been significantly colder as well as warmer than at present.
3. There is no good reason to pick out a recent year (or century) as being privileged in answering "what should the temperature be".
4. It is likely that human activities contribute somewhat to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and to the temperature of the planet.
5. CO2 is a small contributor as a greenhouse gas, and is dwarfed in effect by other gases, most notably water vapor.
   
6. The contribution of greenhouse gases to the thermal state of the planet is highly complex and nonlinear.
7. The sum of effects caused by changes up or down of a few degrees C for the planet are within the range of tolerance (warmer tends to be more healthy, colder tends to be less so, but both are tolerable on a planet-wide scale).