[Hand]

While there is a lot of truth in what he is saying about the paranoia and the attempt at a power grab in the name of said paranoia, that doesn't mean that global climate change is a lie. There is a lot of hard science to it.

When an earth science issue becomes such a political hot topic that the Senate has to vote on it, I tend to start looking a bit deeper into the "science".
I have read that the IPCC was initially tasked with explaining global warming and determining its cause. It's backwards for a scientist to begin with an unfounded conclusion and work backwards. As an aside, it seems the chairman of the IPCC is in a bit of trouble at the moment.

There is still a continuing debate even among the scientific community regarding climate change.

I want to make it clear that I do believe humans are affecting the climate. However, that being said, it is evident that the extent of this effect is questionable. The climate of the Earth is an extraordinarily complex system. To claim, as many proponents of Anthropogenic Global Warming do, that the debate on climate change is over, is simply absurd and potentially dangerous as well. The reaction on the part of AGW proponents to legitimate scientific skepticism is quite disgraceful, in my opinion. To refer to anyone who questions AGW dogmas— such as the claim that there is a ‘consensus’ amongst all climate scientists, or the claim that the debate on climate change is over— as a climate change ‘denier’ in an effort to associate them with Holocaust deniers, or ‘industry stooges’ secretly funded by an insidious cabal of professional sowers of doubt, is nothing more than a cowardly tactic to avoid real debate. Many respected climate scientists have been slandered by AGW advocates simply because their research contradicts the claim that humans are the sole cause of climate change. It is vitally important that we learn to differentiate between the science of climate change and the politics of climate change. These are two very different animals. The proponents of AGW as a political agenda are advocating policies that would mandate virtually complete control of the global economy by bureaucratic elites in the name of controlling carbon emissions. However, the command and control systems they advocate will do nothing to prevent the climate from changing naturally, as it has done repeatedly throughout the history of the Earth, but will do everything to stifle freedom and the real progress that can eventually diminish our reliance on fossil fuels. Just as we should be skeptical of industry funded research, so we should be equally skeptical of government funded research, and at this writing the funding for the IPCC is many times greater than all verified industry funding put together, in spite of the claims of the AGW faction. A bit of investigative research will confirm the veracity of this assertion.

Source

I find it quite interesting that all the climate change driven regulations and the resulting green industries have been concentrated here, arguably one of the more tightly regulated industrial nations, while China's industries produce so much smog that entire cities are blanketed in manufacturing waste particulates. Imposing restrictive regulations here won't eliminate the problem, it is a global issue.

There is a gentleman named Randall Carlson who has been studying the results of catastrophic events on this planet going back past the last couple of climate changing asteroid impacts.

He says

Climate change is a very real and very important issue. We cannot afford to allow the debate to be hijacked by true believers or by those who have a major stake in the outcome, and that includes the likes of Al Gore and his minions, as well as industrial concerns. Gore’s company, Generation Investment Management, is set up to broker carbon credits. This means that if carbon trading is mandated by government agencies, his company will be positioned astride a multi-billion dollar pipeline, potentially earning him hundreds of millions in profits. However, carbon trading schemes will do little or nothing to actually reduce the amount of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere. I have nothing against anyone earning a legitimate profit, but let’s not pretend that Al Gore and company are just disinterested, altruistic benefactors of mankind as contrasted with the big bad energy companies. At least we know where the energy companies stand.

I am 100% for reduction of industrial and public wastes products, reducing particulate output, increasing recycling etc. as we are leaving this planet for future generations to inhabit and we should be good stewards of this planet. I see nothing but political power grabbing and back room deal brokering when it comes to the climate change at this time.

For contrast, while we are pumping c02 into the atmosphere, plants seem to love the stuff and tropical rain forest are expanding beyond predictions (no one would possibly contribute this to "climate change" as a positive outcome publicly though).

While we are being force fed the horrible news that the arctic ice caps are melting, we aren't told that the antarctic caps are growing.

The climate here has an ebb and flow. It frustrates me that we look at a 200 +/- year slice of data and pretend that we truly understand the weather in this place. I would really like to see a public science figure say "we just don't know for sure, we don't have much data".

Note: Here is Randall Carlsons web site. He offers a non-mainstream, unapologetic view of this topic.