I don't mean to bore you with this, but if people don't learn about the crap they are being fed they will end up paying unnecessary taxes for generations to come. I don't mind paying for things that are real but I hate getting conned and don't want the rest of the world being fooled by elitist assholes.

Proving anthropogenic (man made), climate change exists or not and what our response to it should be, is impossible for myself to work out. Convincing others to change their perspectives practically impossible. All I can do is have an opinion and everyone else including Tomlet will have to do the same. I base my decision on the writings of various scientist from around the world. Since the IPCC has become more agenda driven and not a neutral body of science it would be imprudent of me to just accept their body of work. Andrew Weaver, a climatologist at the University of Victoria, says the leadership of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has allowed it to advocate for action on global warming, rather than serve simply as a neutral science advisory body...

Source: http://www.windsorstar.com/technology/Canadian+scientist+says+global+warming+panel+crossing+line/2487264/story.html

The scientists who helped me form my opinion will be listed below, if you want to learn more about the existence of climate change and what our reaction to it should be, read some of their papers, many have also done lectures. This is a huge list, there are more, I have put some quotes or conclusions in italics and bold print. I don't expect many people to read all of them, but for your own edification, try a few.

Frederick Seitz (1911-2008) believed global warming was primarily caused by natural processes. Former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, in 2001 he said: "So we see that the scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities."

Marcel Leroux (1938-2008) believed global warming was primarily caused by natural processes. former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin, in 2005 he said: "The possible causes, then, of climate change are: well-established orbital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale, ... solar activity, ...; volcanism ...; and far at the rear, the greenhouse effect, and in particular that caused by water vapor, the extent of its influence being unknown. These factors are working together all the time, and it seems difficult to unravel the relative importance of their respective influences upon climatic evolution. Equally, it is tendentious to highlight the anthropic factor, which is, clearly, the least credible among all those previously mentioned."

Reid Bryson (1920-2008) believed global warming was primarily caused by natural processes. Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, in 2007 he said: "Its absurd. Of course its going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because were coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because were putting more carbon dioxide into the air."

August H. "Augie" Auer Jr. (1940-2007) believed that the cause of global warming was unknown. Retired New Zealand MetService Meteorologist, past professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming, in 2006 he said: "So if you multiply the total contribution 3.6 by the man-made portion of it, 3.2, you find out that the anthropogenic contribution of CO2 to the global greenhouse effect is 0.117 percent, roughly 0.12 percent, that's like 12c in $100." "'It's miniscule ... it's nothing."

Patrick Michaels, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia: "scientists know quite precisely how much the planet will warm in the foreseeable future, a modest three-quarters of a degree (Celsius), plus or minus a mere quarter-degree ... a modest warming is a likely benefit... human warming will be strongest and most obvious in very cold and dry air, such as in Siberia and northwestern North America in the dead of winter." (October 16, 2003)

Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University: "Warming has been shown to positively impact human health, while atmospheric CO2 enrichment has been shown to enhance the health-promoting properties of the food we eat, as well as stimulate the production of more of it. ... We have nothing to fear from increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and global warming." (2003)

Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: "the rising CO2 content of the air should boost global plant productivity dramatically, enabling humanity to increase food, fiber and timber production and thereby continue to feed, clothe, and provide shelter for their still-increasing numbers ... this atmospheric CO2-derived blessing is as sure as death and taxes." (May 2007)

Ross McKitrick, Assistant Professor in the Department of Economics at the University of Guelph, Ontario. His research found a strong correlation between surface temperature data and a nation's gross domestic product. A regression analysis revealed that a state's GDP explained about half of the warming over the observed period. Mckitrick has remarked, "I have been probing the arguments for global warming for well over a decade. In collaboration with a lot of excellent coauthors I have consistently found that when the layers get peeled back, what lies at the core is either flawed, misleading or simply non-existent. ... I get exasperated with fellow academics, and others who ought to know better, who pile on to the supposed global warming consensus without bothering to investigate any of the glaring scientific discrepancies and procedural flaws."

David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma: "The amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause human or natural is unknown. There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria."

David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma: "The amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause human or natural is unknown. There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria."

John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports: "I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time."