"...we've managed to create some people who seem to be opposed to the persistence of a viable planet" (link) - and to the health and well-being of the next 50 generations.
You'll find them down below. (And those who don't much care* were in the next column over.)
"We will have to do this because if we don’t, our children will curse our lack of courage and our selfishness. ... 2009 is to climate change what 1939 was to WWII." *
See the NCFocus Layman's 1-minute guide to smart thinking about climate, on smart, quick strategies for becoming informed; or just use the risk-management approach Craven suggests.
The Parallel Universes of Climate Change.
(And look here (blogs) or at the Climate Denial Crock of the Week videos (here's the list, with one on Watts) for debunking of new contrarian claims. )
I'm replacing it with this:
This is why we have peer review. Average guys with websites can do a lot of amazing things. One thing they cannot do is reveal statistical manipulation in climate-change studies that require a PhD in a related field to understand. So for the time being, my response to any and all further 'smoking gun' claims begins with:
"Show me the peer-reviewed journal* article demonstrating the error here. Otherwise, you’re a crank and this is not a story."
(from The Economist, Scepticism's limits )