So... lead authors of IPCC Climate Change reports are biased, corrupt and cherry pick their data?
Sure you want to go there?
In 1996, Christy and Spencer won an AMS Special Award "for developing a global, precise record of earth's temperature from operational polar-orbiting satellites, fundamentally advancing our ability to monitor climate."
So, we have experts on both sides.
The most telling part of the article was this (which is why I bolded it):
The problem is that the solutions being offered don't provide any detectable relief from this so-called catastrophe. Congress is now discussing an 80% reduction in U.S. greenhouse emissions by 2050. That's basically the equivalent of building 1,000 new nuclear power plants all operating by 2020. Now I'm all in favor of nuclear energy, but that would affect the global temperature by only seven-hundredths of a degree by 2050 and fifteen hundredths by 2100. We wouldn't even notice it.
Now, I've not heard the HIGW position on this facet - what are the advocates saying? What is their estimates of the results of reducing emissions by 80%?