There is no scientific consensus on this issue, the only consensus is ideological and political. There were hundreds of high ranking scientists, many of whom have environmentalist credentials, some of whom were Nobel prize winners, some ow whom were MEMBERS of the UN IPC, who have openly stated that the claim of a scientific consensus is a lie.

Some of these people have had their careers affected. Earlier this year a majority of the largest scientific organization in America completely broke rank with their president over his claim of a Scientific consensus on the issue in an interview.

All of these things are facts. The question is NOT answered, it IS in debate, there IS no consensus on the issue and several scientists who once supported human caused global warming theories have later recanted this.

The earth will survive us, we may not survive our own stupidity.

Remolding society globally in ways that could economically entire communities of the poor all on the basis of a theory that is far from being established as fact in scientific circles, no matter what you think you have heard and read, and moreover instituting global carbon tax schemes that will harm millions and possibly billions of people, could be a grave mistake.

These very schemes – investigative research has shown – could very well end up massively financially benefit certain of the public figures now claiming that a consensus exists (such as Al Gore who has clear financial and investment ties that will benefit greatly under carbon credit trading schemes) all of this is evil.

Evil prospers when the good do not challenge it. Human caused Global warming COULD WELL be a fact, but there is no consensus on it, and both sides of the issue deserves to be heard.

Follow the money, there are people who are exploiting your fear, and your honest sincere concern for the environment, law, and order, in order to make money off you and impoverish entire societies. Your ignorance of this possibility does not make it less potent.

Congratulations on your red herring colony and straw man farm. They seem to be thriving.

Let me lay this out simply: The Earth will survive us. But, as it stands now, we may not survive ourselves. The issue is not that we will turn the Earth into Neptune, the issue is that we will change the planet enough that the population now living on it will not be able to survive the resultant accelerated changes. We are not hardy Vikings, grown hale and strong over time; We are a more vulnerable (and enormous) population which will not weather a rapid radical change well. In short, it’s about us surviving and not hastening inevitable climate change which will significantly alter our world.

There is much “stupidity bordering on arrogance” that we manifest in our lives. But failing to recognize ourselves as the harbingers of our own doom should not be one of them.

Science and the consensus of the scientific community is still against those who would deny our effect on the global climate. That has not changed.

Climate change alarmists ignore climate history. Why is that? Are they too stupid or deliberately obtuse to read Caesars memoirs, a great peak into the climate when he lived. Or, deliberatly forget that the Vikings occupied Greenland at a time when it was warmer than today? Or, ignore the sunspot cycles of the sun? Any peak into climate history shows wide and sometimes alarming variation having nothing to do with man. It is stupidity bordering on arrogance to think we can terraform the earth (deliberately or inadvertently).

When it comes to climate change follow the money. Carbon footprint trading will become big business and produce nothing but wealth for the privileged few and a monstrous burden for the rest of us.

Meanwhile, Britain having had very wet summers these last couple of years, I note that the UK’s Environment Minister in 2006 is on record as saying climate change would mean hotter and drier summers to come;, it’s almost like he jinxed us.

Anyway, I still cannot see how we can reconcile the definite short-term cooling period we are in these last few years with the global warming trend. Realclimate.org debunks the notion, saying that one cannot compare long-term climate change with temporally local weather variations. But, how does anyone know for certain that a short-term weather cooling will not become the long-term climate trend. Are such cooling effects built into the computer models? If not why not, and moreover, and once again how can anyone know that such short-term trends won’t be the long term history in years to come.