The quote by Popper has been well known in the sciences for ages.
I looked at the site you cited. It had a lot of the language you find at a web forum such as this HOP. These are misc. fragments:
Church of Global Warming’s dogma
turning the Earth into a huge TastyBake oven
Miami will name its first outdoor ice-skating rink after Al Gore
global warming fraudsters ... criminal charges
swat them off the world stage with a rolled-up temperature chart
Sort of humorous from a deniers perspective, but what is interesting is that kind of metaphor will turn off liberals and undecideds, and only appeal to the audience that agrees with them anyway. I am turned off by that sort of language whether it is given by liberals or conservatives.
So I went to the NIPCC site. I couldn't find any technical information there except buried in videos that seemed to be press conferences sponsored by conservative groups. I listened and took a page of notes on over two hours of videos, until they started repeating themselves.
About 15% of what saw of the videos was some whining about not getting coverage from the MSM, introductions of speakers, and back patting (Joe Bast). Bast was quite outspoken about a corporate conspiracy supporting AWC. The major focus of NIPCC was on countering IPCC reports issue by issue. They kept emphasizing disagreements giving political or social reasons rather than technical reasons.
About 3-5% of the discussion was on scientific findings, but admittedly it was just a press conference. The main scientific thrust is threefold:
(1) There is no measured GW in the last 16 years;
(2) CO2 doesn't cause GW.
(3) You can't predict the climate future.
These are the topics closest to technical that I was able to find:
There is a definite anthropogenic rise in CO2. (Dr. Carter)
CO2 won't change the acidity of the ocean. (Dr. Carter)
The sea level will rise by about 7 in., not 24 in. (Dr. Carter)
Plants will grow faster with CO2 (Dr Idso)
CO2 will not cause GW since H2O is predominate as a green house gas. (Dr Soon)
The future of climate change can't be predicted. (Dr Soon)
There will be no improvment in climate if emissions are lowered (Dr Soon)
One final surprising note is that Dr Soon said that lung cancer is not caused by smoking. I had to replay that three times before I could believe my ears. See here, Dr Soon! You are already in an unpopular position on GW, let alone bring up another controversial position in an unrelated area.
So, my conclusion is that I have to remain totally skeptical about item (1) and (2) above unless there is an independent review by an outside agency (Preferably several reviews as in the IPCC case). Or an in-depth science debate between the two sides. (Forbidding all social and political arguments).
I am not concerned about item (3) because it is a corollary of item (2). Future CO2 release can be closely estimated. It is largely the CO2 that is the basis of IPCC prediction. The only controversy here is how much CO2 affects the climate.
I have more to say about Dr Soon's statements, how distant climate history fits in, and the future release of CO2 if anyone is interested, but this is already too long and I doubt if many are reading this.
