I'm often frustrated by media coverage as well. What I once heard a professor describe as 'climate porn'; photos of polar bears on ice bergs along with cataclysmic predictions of 20 meter sea level rise. It's not productive because it makes the problems seem totally intractable and causes many people to just give up because they feel hopeless. Often the articles like that are based on a single more pessimistic paper/scientist[1] when really we should be looking at all the available models not cherry picking the most extreme (which of course is the purpose of the IPCC reports).

[1] although I will say that the more conservative IPCC 2007 predictions for arctic ice sheet loss are looking pretty unlikely and the more pessimistic ones have been much closer to what has happened over the last 5 years. I've no idea if those dates have been revised downwards in the new report.

You're right - I do not reject the science of AGW. Here is my absolute concrete position:

It is foolish to squander finite resources. I believe fossil fuels and clean air are finite resources.

So while I don't reject AGW science, I think its messengers are terrible at PR and practice a level of dishonesty to attempt to further their cause (which so far has had the opposite effect). Having said that - I think for the most part we want the same thing - conservation.

I have 3 kids; I want them and their descendants to have the same chance at life that I had. It sickens me to think that we might selfishly destroy the world's ability to sustain human life.

Then again, he's not the one saying Al Gore's (manbearpig! hurr hurr hurr) finances prove or disprove climate change

No one said this. Are you interested in actual discussion or snide comments?

What's the point of implying that climate change is just a scam to pad people's banks accounts?