Not that I read every article and comment, but I think Slashdot shifted from pro-AGW to anti after the Climategate stuff was released, but also broadly, we had too many people claiming that we had just 4 years to save the planet, and that was a long time ago now.
Disclosure: my own view is that climate change is simply one instance of a class of problems which are global, global in that, they can't be solved by any one government acting alone, so it is these global problems which may necessitate humanity to move to a new set of values which are truly planetary, ie. it is deeply unfair that a kid's chances in life are determined by where they happen to be born, so a kid born in Somalia has a very different life than one born in California, and to really remedy that, we need a united humanity, and so in a sense, global problems like climate change are to be faced not in a technological way, but more essentially in a social and political way, to change people's values, to make people less greedy and more cooperative, and I think that this is why many people are deeply concerned about climate change, because they feel that humanity needs to change its character (changing how we produce energy is just icing on the cake) — however, there is fatal flaw in this, and bear me out, but for succinctness I'm going to say it in an offensive way, namely that, trying to wrap a new morality and ethics inside a science theory, is as bad as creationists trying to refute evolution because they'd rather your little kids grew up believing in their mythic God, in other words, it is a very dumb idea, and apparently, an idea invented by Margaret Thatcher, a very right wing politician who wanted to break the coal miner unions' stranglehold on energy, in around 1985 to 89, and she made a case that coal was very bad, hiding her real reason, her opposition to the miners, and instead gave speeches at the UN about climate change, one of the first politicians to do so, as she wanted to justify going off coal on "scientific" grounds, so she talked about greenhouse gasses and CO2 and man's pollution, and she founded the Hadley Centre and so on... so the moral of the story is, if you really want to transform people's ethics, then talk about the ETHICS themselves, because otherwise, will your ethics become useless if the science ends up changing? or did your ethics actually have their own merit in the first place, regardless of any particular scary problem? that's what the whole environmental movement is going to have to rethink, because as I say, I am in favour of a global united humanity living well in the ecosystems of the world, where every child has a reasonable chance in life, with health and education, but the whole AGW mantra has just blown a huge credibility hole in the project, if one cares to look at it objectively.