Beyond that, all I can do is quote myself out of some recent posts, among which the blog by David Kreutzer:

“…a litany of proposals for stripping financial sovereignty from … well-functioning economies for transfer to … the inept and kleptocratic ["brave new world elite" who then] get access to the wealth they prevent their own citizens from producing … [and, could never have produced themselves]” !!! BRAVO, BRAVO, BRAVO, HF !!! [mine]

In some posts of the last few days I expressed similar thoughts without having enough facts to come up with your conclusion. Reading the two together, however, makes even better sense:

“There is no other way to explain this particularly mad combination of Junk-Science coupled to Junk-Economics engaged to Junk-Politics, except for maybe invoking Freudian psychology.” Now it’s clear there is, and they’re managing to do the “impossible” and pervert even the “Freudian psychology.” !!! Again, Bravo Zulu HF !!!

One more: “I prefer to call this bill “Taxman-Snarkey”, in honor of the only thing it is really set to accomplish: Tax the “bejeesus” out of ordinary Americans to feed another collection of “snarks” lining up to practice (b/p)ig-time “lobby-politics as usual”. It needs to be stopped with as much, if not greater, urgency than that unsavory HR3200. In fact, I’m beginning to worry that HR3200 was just the intended diversion to keep the public from becoming really untethered about this monstrosity.”

You’ve enlightened me that not only was I on the right track, but that future “Snark-Hunting” will have to be global. I can only add, “Good Luck and Good Hunting”! And, "beware of 'Boojums'"! — It IS HIGH time, NOW, to really get the public “Frumious” about this monster, or it will REALLY be TOO LATE!!!

The "CO2 lags not leads temperature change" is not a valid argument in the modern day global warming. Historic values of CO2 were caused by very slow, natural processes and today's increases are dominated by human emissions. Please see the following site for an explanation:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/co2…

Why would you pick one scientist's interview over the massive amount of peer-reviewed scientists that state that AGW is for real.

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warmin…

Historian of science, Naomi Oreskes of UC San Diego, states "Scientific knowledge is the intellectual and social consensus of affiliated experts based on the weight of available empirical evidence, and evaluated according to accepted methodologies.  If we feel that a policy question deserves to be informed by scientific knowledge, then we have no choice but to ask, what is the consensus of experts on this matter." 

Climate change has been extensively researched and the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that the observed modern day global warming is unprecedented and is very likely caused by humans. Although there is little serious debate between climate experts, many in the general public still think that these scientists are unsure about climate change and the role that humans have played in modern day global warming.  The Website above summarizes some of the key research that has led scientists to their overwhelming consensus while also addressing some of the unfounded claims by climate change skeptics and denialists.

The only plausible explanation is that today's warming is primarily due to human activities.  The increase in greenhouse emissions can easily account for this warming.  There is robust evidence for the man-made global warming.  There are no other known sources of warming that can explain the observed modern climate change.  People that claim there is no warming or that the warming is not caused by humans have offered no credible alternate hypotheses.  Yes, these folks make claims but none of the claims has stood up to scientific scrutiny. Because I see/hear much disinformation from well-intentioned folks, I feel it is my duty to try to educate people on this very important matter. Unfortunately, it is an uphill battle because most of the real science is discussed in hard-to-read scientific journals and most of the bad science is easily accessible on Web pages, blogs, and other forms of mass media.  Worse, there are political organizations such as The Heartland Institute that present themselves as scientific organizations but these organizations are directly and indirectly funded by the fossil fuel industry and others that stand to lose if greenhouse gas emissions are reduced.

It is fine to be skeptical, but it is never fine to be a denialist.  A skeptic is willing to hear both sides and is honest with his assessment of the information.  A denialist blindly accepts everything that supports his opinion and immediately discards everything that does not.  Carefully read my Global Warming site with an honest, open mind.  Then weigh what I am discussing with what you have heard and where/who you have heard it from.

There has been no global cooling. See my page at:
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warmin… for a thorough explanation of why the denialists keep talking about global cooling.

F. Swemson,

Bob Carter is a notorious climate denialist supported by the fossil fuel industry. In fact, his latest paper has been thoroughly smashed as shoddy science. See: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/07/24/old-news/

Are we all living in a madhouse where the doctors are crazier than the patients?

What is it going to take to put a stop to this asinine behavior?

That's lovely you want to make a symbolic gesture to show how morally superior were are. Are you willing to live in a 3rd world country for the privilege?