I found the article at Volcanoes Confuse Global Warming Scientists to be interesting. It is essentially a response to an article which attempts to blame the "pause" in AGW to gasses released by volcanoes, those gasses causing a cooling effect. But wait, those are the same gasses that supposedly cause global warming --- confused?

Remind me again how much money algore has made preaching AGW... He's not a scientist either. Politics follow the money...

Another tricky problem to ask the HGW proponents is why the southern Hemisphere is cooler than the Northern Hemisphere?

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/pub/seager/Kang_Seager_subm.pdf

In terms of the various models used for simulation, I am somewhat skeptical of their efficacy for predictions. The reason is that simulations are based on parameters that are defined by the humans in charge. In essence, they can load the model to be favorable to their outlook. I am generally lean away from the "humans are evil" point-of-view that seems to drive the topic due to what others have alluded to - politics, money, and the attendant social engineering. Part of my doubt rises from the experience of the 1970s when we all were warned of the impending doom of a coming ice age. Well, that didn't happen. So, I'll continue to look with doubting eyes on the whole situation.

One doesn't have to understand all the science to believe that something is real. When your doctor tells you that you have heart disease, you don't (generally) say, "I don't believe you, prove it. I want to examine all the science that lead up to that conclusion." One cannot become an expert in every field. So, you have two choices, either believe the experts or believe the non-experts. Or, don't believe either.

Sure, experts have been wrong before, and some non-experts have been right, I expect. But, it is a matter of probability. You generally go with the most probable.

And as another poster pointed out, there are plenty of reasons other than global warming to cut down on air pollution. If you ever are in the local mountains around L.A. in the summer you can look down on a total blanket of brown air over the city--you can't even see the city. I can't see how that can be a good thing. We all know what caused that brown air.

I don't have any exact figures but my guess is that the money made by all sources of alternative energy in the whole world for a year is probably about what the oil companies make in a week. You can trace nearly all attempts to distort the science back to oil companies and conservative politicians. It's hard to even discuss the issue with the no-politics rule of ETS. Take away politics and there is no discussion to be had, at all. Virtually no credible scientist endorses the view that anthropogenic warming is a "hoax." It all comes for talk radio and paid flacks.

I am all for precautionary principles. I am all for alternative re-newable energy source (not including Nuclear).

But even the measurements for Global Warming let alone Anthropogenic (human activity influence) cannot even really substantiate any warming for the globe using the required measurement tools. i.e. Satellite pixel arrays of IR micro bolometers haven't been around prior to the early 1990s (not isolated mercury thermometers located at sample locations subject to error greater than a standard deviation than the so called temperature rise since the 1850s) and when they were available they returned some shocking results for the proponents of AGW. There was virtually no global warming/cooling since the mid to late 1990s. The email scandal of the East Anglia AGW centre 'scientific experts in climatology' were about hiding this fact from the public. This has happened before with the US/Soviet nuclear industry and safety problems of the GE boiling water reactors. Even I knew of the problems of various reactor designs whilst studying them for my 'Higher' nuclear physics course at High School a year before Soviet RBMK reactor blew up. When I hear the term 'expert' then all you need to think is;

Who decided to put half a dozen GE boiling water reactors on a major Japanese fault line subject to Tsunamis? Yep one of those 'experts'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EviEN0ScOwg

or how Money, politics, sales dominate and how the 'engineering/scientific experts' learn to shut up if its their best interest to do so.

Education by a proper university never hurts. Guess what some free and open to follow online. A few examples:

Wait untill march and the university of Queensland gives a free course about `Making Sense of Climate Science Denial´.

https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-of-climate-denial-uqx-denial101x#.VHDqGvmG-So

Or learn how climate change is modeled, by the University of Chicago. Starts January.

https://www.edx.org/course/modeling-climate-change-uchicagox-ps280x#.VHDqt_mG-So

Forums, youtube, and most internet sources are all kind of crappy source for proper knowlegde.

All you'e got to ask yourself is how believable is it that for no reason 97% of the worlds climate scientists have decided to commit career suicide by pulling off the biggest hoax in history. And they have done it with an efficiency the CIA could only dream of. Hundreds of studies, by thousands of scientists, over decades, have all been faked to show the same results, but no one has ever found any evidence of them co-operating.

And the climated deniers (they aren't sceptics; sceptics ask for evidence, they don't automatically dismiss any evidence they see) have so much evidence it is fake, that they can't even agree what is happening. Some say the earth isn't warming, some say it's natural variation; though they can't produce a single example of climate changing this fast globally before. Some laughably claim it's sunspots. Hardly surprising as almost none of them are climate sceintists. They can't produce any evidence because they have none.

qjs

Actually the temperature variations we have had since the industrial revolution (lets say the last 250 years) have been quite benign compared to the past of rapid cooling and rapid heating of the climate. (lets assume no human influence)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansgaard–Oeschger_event

Look at the Geologic Record via ice core samples.