I agree that the IPCC is not infallible; only a few days ago on OLO there were credible claims by Kjell Aleklett that IPCC emissions scenarios may be exaggerated. Whatever the merit of other explanations for climate change (eg cosmic rays, natural cycles) the fact is the Earth never before had 6.5 billion people. These people are critically vulnerable to disruption of supplies of cheap energy and water. Even if IPCC is only half right I think it is good insurance to act on their warnings. If they are wrong we can cut our losses. So far the evidence suggests IPCC warming predictions are conservative if anything.

This is a very valuable contribution in a debate that should be balanced.The Australian public is experiencing anxiety on this topic largely because of fears about the drought.It is important that they are not misled by extremist nonsense. I hope that a willingness to allow a proper debate (and to hear all points of view) will prevail.

The 'climate change' industry is utterly corrupt.
Along the way, it has corrupted science and scientists.
It is partly a product of the internet, but the internet will be the tool to hold many of those responsible accountable.
Oh if only a fraction of the billions of dollars so far squandered on the preposterous endeavor of 'fighting climate change' had been spent on the real and present afflictions of humanity.

Just a little niggle here, slightly off-topic, and yet not. It's the gratuitous use of the word "industry", as in the term "greenhouse industry". Whenever I see that term, I fear I am in the presence of someone from the spin industry.

(When I were a lad, the word industry meant "the organised action of making goods". Now it means just whatever you like. Intangibles Incorporated never had it so good.)

Is the author implying that the climate-change worry-warts have a commercial agenda? Can there only ever be one motivator of human activity - PROFIT? If some of us were to be informed by other ideals, would it be asking too much for the Captains of Industry to take time off and see us as anything other than commercial rivals?

Linear thinkers from Linear Land take note. It is the RATE of climate-change that is the problem for living things. The nearest thing in your language is the phenomenon of compound interest - and that's about as unnatural as it gets - as we are all about to find out.

Point taken.
'Climate change' industry is a euphemism.
'Climate change' racket is more accurate.

Racket is so right.

Do a google search on Greanpeace salaries, Sierra Club salaries, or environmental organization salaries, and you'll find there's no need to be a profit-making organization to rip folks off. At least companies in the energy business are accountable to shareholders.

... and do you think companies in the bio-fuel business are in because of altruism?

Environmentalists are the neo-Marxists of our time. They've just painted over the red with green