Akuma,
You didn't really answer my question ...
The interesting thing about science is that it is not a popularity contest, and a million people who each wrote dozens of studies trying to demonstrate a hypothesis is correct can all be proven wrong by one person with one piece of data. It is unscientific to continue to blindly support an unchanged hypothesis when there is data available which questions the correctness of the hypothesis. Insisting that people must do so because some authoritarian group says we must believe in the hypothesis, and we must repent in our evil ways, is far more in line with how religion works.
Now, there exists data which disproves man-made global warming until the hypothesis is adjusted and validated, and there are viable alternative hypothesis which should also be considered. Why do you blindly continue to support a discredited hypothesis that is being pushed by people who benefit if governments act upon it, without considering the alternatives?
Personally, I consider all possiblities and support any actions that can be taken to reduce any human involvement in the climate (and for humans to adjust to a new climate) where the impact on our current lifestyles is minimal; basically I support due diligence in protecting the climate under the realization that current hypothesis are most likely incorrect, inaccurate and incomplete.
I don't really have a "Dog in this fight" except to try to protect everyone from a group of morons who don't understand the scientific method, and abuse the system for personal gain at the expense of everyone.
