This lengthy article quotes a string of scientists who question the IPCC's finings. Many of the contraians are familar to me, some are not. Regardless, the article provides the climate denier drones with a one-stop gold mine of quotes and quips.

Here are the concluding paragraphs.

Certainly the profound climate change did not come about - not yet - and it's impossible now to know just how unanimous the viewpoint was. Maybe, at the end of the day, consensus is all in the eye of the believer.

Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist within the IPCC tower structure, put it this way as he clarified remarks he made that the IPCC consensus was never really a consensus anyway.

"The IPCC consensus does not mean - clearly cannot possibly mean - that every scientist involved in the IPCC process agrees with every single statement in the IPCC," he wrote. "Some scientists involved in the IPCC did not agree with the IPCC's projections of future sea-level. Giving the impression that the IPCC consensus means everyone agrees with everyone else - as I think some well-meaning but uninformed commentaries do (or have a tendency to do) - is unhelpful; it doesn't reflect the uncertain, exploratory and sometimes contested nature of scientific knowledge."

Uncertain, exploratory, contested - those are the perfect words to describe the global warming debate these days. Perhaps there is a consensus about that, if about nothing else.

Next: Is the earth warming at all, or entering a period of global cooling?

That newspaper has a circulation of about 5000.  Site stats:

Lakelandtimes.com has the potential to earn $575 USD in advertisement revenue per year.

If the site was up for sale, it would be worth approximately $4,024 USD.

How to boost your ratings and revenues?  Jump on the anti-science bandwagon.  :-)

Best ignored imho.

Does this article contain any new quotes by the usual list of contraians?

Does the article quote scientists who are not on our usual list of contrarians?

I came across this article on Google's daily summary of climate change articles. I suspect that in itself will bump up the hits at the Lakeland Times.

Doesn't seem to be anything new here and the reporter obviously has a bias, although a not to extreme one. Most of the comments are non specific from second stringers. Shaviv is just riding his usual Galactic influences hobbyhorse. ANd the report carefully doesn't draw a distinction between WG II, where the faults listed come from and WG I which is key one about the basic science. And he didn't dig deep enough to see that the team behind the Amazon tree felling paper have also written papers putting forward the 40% figure, including the lead Danial Nepstad even making a statement on the Woods Hole website to that effect.