I spent years in university getting a degree in Pure Mathematics which is (essentially) a degree in logical problem solving, argument, and formal (mathematical) proof; this (to a certain extent) makes me an expert in understanding logical arguments which are the basis for all scientific knowledge.
From what I have seen, the argument surrounding global warming is heavily flawed ...
In many cases they hypothesis is assumed in an effort to demonstrate that the hypothesis is correct, and only the most corrupt or incompetent people in the world would allow such a weak argument to be published; in other cases the 'Scientists' use is less accurate and more questionable in validity than other data which is readily available, and one can suspect that this data is used because it is the only data that will support their hypothesis (look at ground based temperature readings vs. satellite temperature readings).
Above all else, the thing that bothers me is this constant discussion of a "Scientific Consensus" when no such consensus exists; and even if one did exist it doesn't mean anything because unpopular ideas can be (and often are) correct.
This doesn't mean that Global Warming isn't happening, or that man has no influence on the climate of the Earth, but I don't think the science is close to being settled; and I am a little concerned that the main 'solutions' seem to be more focused on wealth distribution rather than on actually reducing energy usage.
I think most people will agree that it makes sense to reduce the use of fossil fuels for social, economic, political and environmental reasons (and to switch to alternative fuel resources); but carbon trading (as has been suggested in the wake of Kyoto) will not have any long term impact on fossil fuel usage, and is really only a wealth distribution scheme from wealthy countries to poor (mostly corrupt) countries.
