James Randi on "Global Warming"
randi.org
randi.org
This is debate is just becoming more ideological and less scientific.
P.S.: No, I don't know who this Randi is. But I am sure he's not a climatologist.
1. What is the actual, plausible motivation for the entirety of the IPCC to mislead people about climate change?
2. Why are measures to reduce carbon output so maligned? At worst, they will be a wasted effort. At best - if climate change is indeed man-made - they will prevent huge environmental disasters. (Bangladesh mostly vanishing under the sea, global food production collapsing, the oceans' food chain collapsing due to acidification, etc.)
2. Because the necessary remedies would result in severe productivity destruction, probably exceeding WWII (including fatalities). Energy is the life blood of economic activity. The present depression is mostly a result of an approximately 2% decrease in energy consumption for part of 2008. The AGW reduction targets are 5% a year in perpetuity, which by linear extrapolation leads to economic apocalypse.
And why would a scientific panel be interested in giving power to a bunch of political appointees?
While we're speaking of money, how about the motivations of the people with the large stock portfolios they don't want to see devalued? The people with the kind of money to hire PR companies to, say, astroturf a conveniently timed "AWG is a lie" campaign?
2. You do realise that we are going to run out of resources on this planet eventually, right? Saying that we must keep on increasing economic activity at all costs lest disaster strike is a surefire way to guarantee disaster, not just via climate change but via overfishing, deforestation and the resulting land loss, pollution, etc.
Also, the decrease in energy consumption is clearly not the cause of the depression, but rather one of its effects. Things can be done in a much more energy-efficient manner.