For the defense ...

... Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong by William D. Nordhaus | The New York Review of Books. (Hat tip, Dave Lull.)

Since I sometimes post links to articles questioning global warming, I feel it is only fair to link to one that objects to the objections. But I must say this piece is not terribly persuasive. Nordhaus says "that global temperatures are rising over the last century-plus is one of the most robust findings of climate science and statistics." But the graph indicates that the warming has been about eight-tenths of a degree. Over more than century. Hardly catastrophic, I would think.
As for his second point, it hardly squares with this: Climate Models Fail to Match Observed Historical Data.
His third point is to cite the Supreme Court as a source. The Supreme Court may have expertise when it comes to the law, but even its members get their science elsewhere.The notion of CO2 as a pollutant is nonsense. 
All this said, please understand that I do think the evidence indicates a warming trend. I am also pretty sure that human activity may contribute to this somewhat. But probably everything else does, too. That's what we mean when we talk about an "environment." I remain unconvinced that this warming in either unprecedented or that it is catastrophic or that we can do much about it.