"This is as true of you or me as it is of Amos, BB, TIA, or anyone else here."



No..it is not. I read all the sides...up to a point. Your very answer, LH, is a generalization which may...or may not..be accurate. Sometimes one can see the bad logic, bad research and bias involved. But *I* do NOT just parrot the views of those whom I 'like', or have $$$ interest in, or whose politics I agree with. I do not even claim that I am absolutely sure that the current science is infallible. But I DO take note of analyses like I posted from this page:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/more-on-the-polar-bears-fate/

reposting short excerpt:

"Regardless, population recoveries, where they have occurred, are irrelevant in light of the recent changes in the availability of sea ice for polar bears."

You see? This is about claims and indicates an awareness OF the other sides... and it gives details on who the authorities are in the matter instead of just tossing out 'data' which may be simply out-of-context numbers.
It is one thing to sift thru data, it is quite another to work out what data is relevant and and its age and source.