but one cannot choose to believe whether or not the earth is getting warmer.

Over what time frame? Yes there have been periods of warming and periods of cooling and periods like recently of no change. Scientific Method depends on repeatable results. The fact that CO2 has continued to rise but temperatures haven't breaks the "repeatable results" chain. (I noticed no one tried to address that issue) The fact that CO2 based models predicting temperature rises have been embarrassingly wrong further undermines the "established science" position.

Lee - I admire your willingness to admit there are competing arguments. Unfortunately, after seeing the core presentation of the featured presenting organization, I don't have your faith that both sides will be fairly represented at this workshop.

well balanced presentation

That's probably the key point here, Lee. Just about every stance in science (as in any discipline) has its dissenting voices, but in any pedagogical situation, how much time is devoted to an elaboration of these dissenting voices in order to give a "well-balanced presentation"? Should that time reflect the proportion of consensus/dissensus within the scientific community? As far as opponents to anthropogenic climate change, they would seem to warrant about as much attention as acquatic ape theorists would in a presention on the theory of evolution.

As far as opponents to anthropogenic climate change, they would seem to warrant about as much attention as acquatic ape theorists would in a presention on the theory of evolution.

So Justin, perhaps you would like to explain the lack of warming despite ever increasing CO2 emmissions. Remember, science isn't determined by "consensus" (especially manufactured consensus) it is determined by science.

So Justin, perhaps you would like to explain the lack of warming despite ever increasing CO2 emmissions.

(Where are you getting your science? Surely not from rightwing political sources?) You seem to be confusing temperature with heat. The pop culture myth you seem to be invoking has been thoroughly debunked. See http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm and http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008-intermediate.htm and its links to the peer-reviewed science.

Remember, science isn't determined by "consensus" (especially manufactured consensus) it is determined by science.

Not sure I need the reminder. There is 97% agreement among scientists on anthropogenic climate change. This percentage comes from a survey of the number of articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals from 1991 to 2011. See http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

Are you suggesting that 97% of scientists and the scores of professional and national organizations Kurt linked to have "manufactured" (i.e. fabricated their science) in order to reach a consensus on climate change? And where is the list of professional and national scientific organizations that have issued a position statement against anthropogenic climate change?

The pop culture myth

I didn't realize the NYTs was into pop culture myths.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climat...

Re the studies. I have reviewed the University of Illinois study and its conclusions were clearly manufactured (as exposed above). I haven't researched all the others but I suspect they have similar flaws, i.e. leading questions, selective sampling, false extrapoloations etc. The fact the Illinois researches had to go to such lenghts to manufacture the data shows how wrong the 97% number must be. Kind of like the "hide the decline".

As to studies/groups refuting AGW, they are certainly playing against a loaded deck. If you are at all familiar with the East Anglia emails - you would know that there has been a concerted effort to suppress research and opinions discrediting AGW. Nevertheless, a long list (partially shown below) of very reputatble scientists from mainstream institutions have expressed there skeptisim.

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections
Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

• Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [10]
• Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[11]
• Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003), and author of books supporting the validity of dowsing[12]
• Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU[13]
• Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[14]
• Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [15]

Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

Graph showing the ability with which a global climate model is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record, and the degree to which those temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. It shows the effects of five forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes, and volcanic emissions.[16]

Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

• Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[17]
• Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[18][19]
• Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[20]
• Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[21]
• David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[22]
• Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[23]
• William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[24]
• William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[25]
• William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[26]
• David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[27]
• Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[28]
• Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[29][30]
• Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[31]
• Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[32][33]
• Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo[34]
• Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[35][36][37]
• Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[38]
• Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[39]
• Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center[40]
• Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[41]

Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown
Scientists in this section have made comments that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

• Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks[42]
• Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris)[43]
• Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University[44]
• John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC[45][46]
• Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory[47]
• Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology[48]
• David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma[49]
• Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.[50]
• Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists[51]

Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences
Scientists in this section have made comments that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth's environment. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

• Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [52]
• Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[53]
• Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[54]

Teaching about Climate Change is important no matter whether your part of the 97% or 3% on the cause. The only constant on earth is change. Our Earth has gone through many climate changes, and teaching the young to consider how to best deal with the changes is important no matter if it is caused by us or mother nature. You can point fingers at the cause but how to deal with the results of rising oceans, changing weather patterns, moving communities affected, etc..may be important. Just my thoughts.

David,

I agree. If the workshop is how to cope with change, no matter the cause, I have no problem with it. Unfortunately, the evidence suggests it is one of the typical, one-sided presentations that blames change on humans and encourages government intervention.

EC, again, I disagree with your interpretation of the ppt. It casts no "blame," though it does, in a draft footnote, point to GHG levels produced by different parks in the system. And unless there's another hidden footnote I haven't seen, it doesn't encourage "government intervention" outside of leading by example. What's wrong with government agencies trying to reduce their GHG footprint?