Climate Change Denial Overload

I'm in the process of putting together a presentation regarding paleoclimate evidence (proxy records etc.) for climate change and I've been reading for a few weeks now the various related blog posts and environmental news commentaries. In the beginning I was shocked at the mere stupidity of those leading the arguments (mostly in the US) on how invalid anthropogenic warming is and so on. I read so much stuff from so many different sources, with loads of great rebuttals (see the Gristmill's "How to talk to a climate skeptic" guide!) and even some name calling (!) (see Peiser vs Oreskes, Gray vs Trenberth etc).

But what's really making me furious instead of laughing at these guys anymore, is statements and manipulations by people like:

1) Mike Morano, communications director of Oklahoma Senator and Environment Committee Chair Jim Inhofe (hear the live audio recording of Morano vs Revkin, Blakemore and Fagin at the Society of Environmental Journalists Conference here - a very kind contribution of da lovely DeSmogBlog)

2) Tom Harris, leading the latest perversion by public discourse by public relations professionals - Canada's Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP - or aka Not Really Science People or Not Really Serious People! once again brava SmogBlog!). I quote him: "Gore (talking about An Inconvenient Truth)repeatedly labels carbon dioxide (CO2) as “global warming pollution” when, in reality, it is no more pollution than is oxygen. CO2 is plant food, an ingredient essential for photosynthesis without which Earth would be a lifeless, frozen ice ball....The hypothesis that human release of CO2 is a major contributor to global warming is just that – an unproven hypothesis, against which evidence is increasingly mounting."

3) and the tip of the iceberg, Republican pollster Frank Luntz, a guy who has made a career of massaging language to his clients advantage. Check out his now infamous enviro-speak memo to the Republican party, where he advises the following:
"The three words Americans are looking for in an environmental policy, they are (sic) 'safer,' 'cleaner,' and 'healthier."
"If you must use the economic argument, stress that you are seeking 'a fair balance' between the environment and the economy."

Ouff, angry and tired as well...