I call for a five year moratorium on all talk of climate change. By five years the appropriate scientists should have checked out their models and determined how far their climate predictions depart from reality.

Meanwhile the rest of us can prepare for the next wave of millennium hysteria. My bet is that we will have to steal ourselves against “a return of the Treffids.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_of_the_Triffids

As usual, most commentators (posters) agree that human activity is causing much climate change, and a few point to science showing that natural cycles account for most of it.
There could be merits in either conclusion, based upon evidence. But either way we should be doing all we can to stop industrial emissions.
Long before the climate change and global warming debate became popular I have felt that industry and vehicle air pollution is a disaster for human health, and environment health that must be stopped. There are many other pollutants other than CO2 in emissions that cause damage. Farm animals and humans have been been getting badly effected by fluoride gases, sulpur and nitrogen oxides, benzenes and a host of other pollutants for far too long.
If global warming concerns, valid or not, can be the catalyst for curtailing rampant global industrial pollution, then good for the global warming scare.

Response to Ironer:

In your opening sentence you said something quite bizarre. Most commentators point to the scientific evidence or summaries of this evidence to show that human activity is responsible for the rapid climate change we are experiencing.

Those that think otherwise point to blogs and their views are not backed up by any scientific evidence. If there was any suggestion that natural cycles are responsible for rapid climate change, it would be included in scientific and government reports - especially those of conservative governments.

I brake my own suggested moratorium and refer to a paper by Robert M Carter on the Lavoisier web site
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/

Professor Carter in this paper discusses questions of McCarthyism, intimidation, press bias, censorship, policy-advice corruption and propaganda in respect to global warming.

I comment further that there are scientific papers too on the Lavoisier site that argue the case against the anthropogenic carbon dioxide hypothesis.

Now I know this is a site supported by industry. However, before I hear the usual sterile environmentalist complaint that anything supported by industry is biased and untrue. I raise the question that the same or similar criticisms can be levelled at left inclined Green groups.

It is even possible that university research has its sponsors or sources of grants and/or endowments and these too may be a source of bias.

David Latimer - nothing too "bizarre" about the fact that both sides of the debate can summon at least some science to their argument.
But my central point was that there are umpteen good reasons for severely limiting industrial and vehicle emissions anyway, for human and environmental health, regardless of whether the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is totally proven at this stage or not.