Fair comment from a sceptic...

"I'll take the AGW proponents seriously when they agree to a full public debate with the skeptics. If the science is as rock solid as they claim then they should welcome the chance to humiliate the climate realists. How about Al Gore vs. Vaclav Klaus, Lord Stern vs. Bjorn Lomborg, Dr. Suzuki vs. Prof.Prof Pat Michaels, Michael Mann vs. Steve McIntyre? Fat chance. The adherence to AGW hinges on preventing the public from hearing both sides of the debate..." UPDATE, see this re a debate on December 1st...
...AND speaking of Al Gore...according to Andrew Bolt ...This is big. Al Gore is now saying carbon dioxide isn’t actually to blame for most of the warming we saw until 2001: Gore explored new studies - published only last week - that show methane and black carbon or soot had a far greater impact on global warming than previously thought. Carbon dioxide – while the focus of the politics of climate change – produces around 40% of the actual warming. Gore acknowledged to Newsweek that the findings could complicate efforts to build a political consensus around the need to limit carbon emissions. Which suggests not only that Gore was wrong to claim the science was “settled”, but that the hugely expensive schemes to “stop” warming by slashing carbon dixoide emissions will be less than half as effective as claimed...more here...

...now what does all this suggest to you ? To me it seems clear that there is a call for some serious repositioning among the warming hysterics, and to get the most "progressive" deal from Copenhagen some uncomfortable backdowns will have to be made. Perhaps Al should acknowledge for starters that An Inconvenient Truth was BS propaganda of the worst order. Any other suggestions ?

...and, as you know, there's a big one in Scunthorpe, but an even bigger one in Ethiopia...