A couple of comments caught my eye in particular.
There was one suggesting that the change in Reuters' position on Climate Change was to create more balanced reporting. Unfortunately, 'balance' can be used as an excuse to downplay the degree of scientific consensus on AGW. If all media organisations were to give airtime to AGW supporters and AGW deniers in proportion to the proportions of scientists supporting their respective positions, then for each minute of airtime given to AGW supporters, about two seconds would be given to AGW deniers/sceptics.
The degree of scientific consensus on AGW is stronger than the consensus that seatbelts in cars reduces deaths and injuries to drivers and passengers, and also stronger than the consensus that smoking is damaging to health. It is a constant source of amazement to me, therefore, that more is not being done to tackle AGW.
The other comment that caught my attention was one referring to an article suggesting a lull in global warming in the last decade and a half. My response to this is that a decade or so of data does not disturb my confidence in the validity of the numerous climate models that track trends over much, much longer timeframes (eg typically hundreds of thousands of years, which is the timeframe over which most of the (weak) natural processes modifying global temperatures operate). For more about the links between CO2 and global temperatures, see my blog post below about Milankovitch Cycles.
Personally, I think that AGW is real and very worrying and that AGW-denial is an increasingly untenable position for anyone to hold to. I predict that those who continue to hold to AGW-denial will become increasingly desperate to seek out any crumbs of evidence that might support their view. They will become more vehement and irrational in their defence of their position, and will resort to proof-by-blatant-assertion or conspiracy theories to justify their position.