The scientific consensus now is that "real" warming isn't going to start for twenty years or so, long enough for most of those hanging their careers on it to be safely retired or dead.

"Are you going to believe our models, or your own lying eyes?" Keeping in mind that none of those models predicted this generation-long climactic "pause" button.

I'm noticing some sweating in recent science papers, including an increasing tendency to, perhaps unconsciously, cherry-pick data.

Polar bear population studies is a classic example (from Al Gore being in the news on this). It always seems to be about the same Western Hudson Bay subpopulation when the subject comes up. But of 19 geographical subpopulations of bears, seven of them have no real population data, seven areas are actually stable or increasing, and only five are declining.

Polar bears, as a species, go back about 300,000 years. Given the enormous increases and declines of polar ice and temperatures in that time, the idea that local changes would kill them off is inane.