A new Gallup poll shows that compared to three years ago, twice as many Americans believe that global warming’s consequences are exaggerated.

And in just the last year, there has been an increase in skepticism from 41% to 48%.

The chart below shows a number of trends. Skepticism about global warming was generally low in 1997, when the polling started, before climate change was getting regular news coverage, either fact or opinion based.

In fact, the level of skepticism did not change much with the increasing coverage of climate change in the wake of An Inconvenient Truth, increasingly publicized consensus among the vast majority of climate scientists that global warming was real, human caused and potentially devastating, the Third Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001, or even the Nobel prize winning Fourth IPCC Assessment Report in 2007. So, we could assume that roughly 30% of the skeptics are not going to be persuaded by science. They have their opinion and they are sticking to it.

"Did Jim Inhofe Manipulate Poll Data On Climate Change Policy?" asks Eric Kleefeld today at Talking Points Memo.  Kleefeld questions whether Inhofe falsely represented polling data on American public opinion about climate policy. 

Following his bizarre trip to Copenhagen, Inhofe penned an op-ed in USA Today earlier this week arguing that "The bottom line is this: The American people have caught on to the significant flaws of cap-and-trade policy," and citing a Washington Post poll which he alleged proved his point that "the American public is growing restless with policies that would put more Americans out of jobs and raise the cost of energy."

But Kleefeld takes issue with Inhofe's interpretation of the poll.  "The problem is this: The poll doesn't say that people are against policies that would raise the cost of energy -- in fact, it says quite the opposite," he writes.

In July, as part of my "Climate Denial Crock of the Week" video series, I published a piece that criticized and parodied the work of well known climate denier Anthony Watts, and his "SurfaceStations.org" project.

On July 26, Watts filed what I regard as an improper "DMCA" claim against the video, and had it removed from YouTube.

The DMCA, (Digital Millenium Copyright Act), was originally intended to protect copyright owners from internet abuse, but has been occasionally used improperly, notoriously by authoritarian religious groups and cults, in order to restrain criticism and free speech on the internet.

After some investigation of related cases and obtaining additional opinions as to relevant copyright law, I  confirmed my original belief that my videos in no way violate copyright law, especially in light of the principles of critical review, parody, and transformational use of material.

In accordance with established YouTube guidelines, I filed a "counternotice", affirming, "under penalty of perjury, that I have a good faith belief that the material  was removed or disabled as a result of a mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled."

As of today, I have received the following confirmation from YouTube:

" In accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we've completed processing
your counter-notification regarding your video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcxVwEfq4bM

This content has been restored and your account will not be penalized."

I wish to extend my sincerest gratitude to YouTube, to all those who advised and supported me in this effort, and most especially, to Anthony Watts and SurfaceStation.org, for providing invaluable exposure to my video series, and greatly increasing my traffic and visibility.

The so called Medieval Warming Period is an article of faith among deniers.

I've had deniers write to me to say that this is the single most convincing piece of "skeptic evidence".

But what does the "Supreme Court of Science" say?  Here's a piece you can pass around to friends who need the best information in a nutshell. 

Sea level rise will be one of the most important and destructive effects of climate change, so naturally, Deniers have something grossly in error to say about it.

We'll look, as always, at the source documents.

George Monbiot's 'Top Ten Climate Change Deniers' reads like a keynote speaker wishlist from the Heartland Institute. Enjoy!