I'll include this with my political digest, but it deserves to be read separately. Good discussion in the Washington Post, hardly an oil company apologist rag!
A Skeptical Take on Global Warming
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2009/09/a_skeptical_perspective_on_glo.html Update: You have to scroll down to read the article.
Excerpt: This Capital Weather Gang blog entry is written with considerable trepidation given the politically-charged atmosphere surrounding human-induced global warming. I am a meteorologist with a life-long weather fascination. As I'm sure you know, meteorology is an inexact science due to the large number of variables involved in predicting and understanding the weather. I frequently say that weather forecasting is a humbling endeavor, and I have learned to respect its challenges. From this perspective, you might be able to better understand why I wince when hearing pronouncements such as "the science is settled", "the debate is over", or even the "the temperature in the 2050s is projected to be..." I realize that forecasting climate and weather are different, but both involve a large number of moving parts. There are numerous reasons why I question the consensus view on human-induced climate change covered extensively on this blog…
Click on the link and read it all.