runner - I took your post to mean science is misleading - evidently you mean it to be an alternative, where science is being used to mislead.

Quite frankly, I don't have the expertise to assess most of the global warming science. Most people don't.

Though I see a massive weight of scientific evidence favouring global warming as a contributor to climate change and I see much less on the other side - though there are some denying it.

I do have difficulty with your notion that science is being used to mislead the debate - for starters, presumably science is also being used to defend against it.

Discounting science altogether, it is obvious our climate is changing, regardless of whether it's caused by CO2 emissions. You only need to observe the fact that Southern Queensland is suffering it's longest drought on record while north Queensland had record rainfalls this year. Either one alone could be an anomaly, but both? When weighed up with everything else, it's unlikely.

So back to the 'science.'

More scientists support global warming than those who don't. An overwhelming number in fact. So you've got to ask, why?

In these cases, you always follow the money. I've heard the claim that perhaps scientists who support global warming do so because it means more money for research.

Put simply, there are so many holes in this theory it's laughable. For starters, it either requires a global conspiracy, or massive numbers of scientists deciding that their life's work is going to be gunning for their next grant.
It can be contemplated in theory, but really - these are everyday people in huge numbers, and for all of them to overlook the facts to get a quick grant is unlikely. Plus, I'm sure they could alternatively go to the oil companies.

It's churlish to deny climate change is occurring - look around you. The issue then becomes whether it's caused by man - and I'd rather err on the side of caution and the majority of scientists.

Divergence,
People have babies, not governments. Governments might encourage or coerce people to have children with too much tax income at their disposal. People make the choice, and then need to take responsibility for their choices.
People build houses, not governments. Governments provide a little information, but it's an information rich world, and anyone can research and find out about solar passive house designs, alternative energy, solar hot water, wind turbines, etc.
People want to immigrate to Australia. Governments set or lift limits on population growth through immigration. People come to Queensland, because of the climate, not because of, or most likely in spite of, the government.
People in Australia, who have relatively high disposable incomes love to spend (after all they don't save). People are intelligent enough to realise or research the more money they spend on and throw away consumer goods the greater the effects on the environment.
Look first to the people and individuals, and what they do in their lives. Give people the respect for their intelligence. They can work out the effects they're having.

Derek@Booroobin,

People may want to come to Australia, but that does not create a corresponding obligation on our government to let them in.

Giving space to this drivel severely compromises the creditability of this site

This poster is a total d!ckhead, is he seriously suggesting that Al Gore is a socialist, and that Leonardo is any sort of an authority on global warming, he is just an actor with a website and a point of view, but I doubt that the millions of people around the world who are concerned about global warming would even be aware or care that he had either and I very much doubt the 2500 scientists who are concerned about global warming would either.
If I used the same sort of logic this w@nker uses, I could argue that melting of snow on MT Kilamanjaro in 18whenever was the first sign of global warming,it might have been, it might not have been, who knows.
As for the Artic there are dozens of indicaters that it is melting faster than normal.
I can't believe anybody takes this crap seriously enough to bother debating it.

Terpstra's another ignoramus who wouldn't know a VOC from a sock or of their impacts on all living species on this planet!