I'm not really a scientist, so I can't take any sides here, but I would like to point out a few things (make your own rational judgments). I do know the true principles of science, if little about its practice. Real science is unbiased. Everyone in these threads seems to get so heated that their "side" is right (I've been guilty of it as well, its an easy trap to fall into). Well, real science does not care about sides, it cares about boiling down a system of variables into a probable hypothesis. Even the most likely hypotheses have been shattered - I'm not saying that is the case, but sometimes climatology feels more like faith than science. Real science aims to prove its results wrong, not to prove them right.<p>Climatology/meteorology/etc are actually very difficult types of science because you cannot simple put the earth in a confined test area where you can tweak the variables on a small level. Yes, we all know that increase in CO2 = increase in greenhouse effect, that is child's science and not a real question. The real question is how much impact do human beings really have on the atmosphere, and to what degree should we change our behavior (if at all) based on that? There are so many variables that are difficult to predict (or even determine in realtime) - the sun's energy output, how much CO2 gets processed by trees, how much CO2 gets trapped in the upper atmosphere (it happens, despite it being heavier than other types of atmosphere), underwater volcanic activity, and so forth. That, and try doing a thermodynamic simulation at earth's scale - the best we can do is very crudely rough it. That said, there is no reason we should trash our environment just because we don't know what is going on - there are a million reasons to gravitate towards clean energy (in particular, sustainable energy).<p>All I can say is, if you are a real scientist, constantly question your own beliefs, don't fight for them.