The alarmists will be the deniers in 2009
The Australian cannot grasp the fact that spending trillions of dollars tinkering with a harmless trace gas is a complete waste of time, continuing to spread doom, such as the following:
As the chart at right covering the past 10 years shows [not shown], that makes  the third year in a row of falls. Draw a trend line between 1998 and last year and it slopes downwards.
So at least global warming has halted, hasn't it? That is one way of looking at it. Evidence that the earth is cooling certainly has put a new bounce in the step of climate change sceptics.
However, the news does not look so good if we take the longer-term view. The official records going back to 1850 ... show a long-term rising trend. It is not huge - of the order of 0.8C - and it is not without fluctuations but it is unmistakable. It also coincides with increasing carbon dioxide emissions, which we know will continue growing for some time yet, even if the world manages to reach an agreement in Copenhagen this year on future reductions. On this longer view, 2008 is the 10th hottest year of the last 158.
This last paragraph is utter nonsense. Records of 150 years are almost meaningless in climate terms. Temperatures have been rising slowly since the end of the Little Ice Age (which the IPCC deny ever occurred), and so a rise of 0.8C is completely normal, and temperatures were far higher in the Medieval Warm Period (which the IPCC also deny ever occurred). And CO2 emissions didn't even get going until the mid 20th century, so how does this show a "correlation with CO2"?
The article then goes on to quote warming-freak James Hansen, rubbishes a petition of 31,000 scientists who question the "consensus" because it came from an institute:
based in a small rural town and styles itself as a non-profit research institute with six "faculty members" working in protein biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and ageing. It also promotes home schooling as an alternative to "socialism in education".
(what has that got to do with anything? No major institution would dare question the consensus for fear of losing funding, so the fact that it's a small organisation doesn't surprise me in the least) and further complains that the signatories don't have the right qualifications (like the IPCC, of course, but no-one ever mention that), and tries to use the hackneyed "insurance" analogy to persuade us that action is need urgently.
It's the alarmists that are the true deniers.
Read it here.