Very good article. Touches the nerve of the misguided "climate change" debate today. The problem we have today is that the politicians in all countries are still being the old breed types. But what was their key skill and advantage, does not work any more among media savvy populace. What once worked was a political consensus of the elite. As diverse as their interests were, once an under the table consensus was found, then the SUITABLE NARRATIVE was created for the ignorant populace. And the media was to be the transmitter of the narrative to the ignorant. Much has changed. But not necessarily for the better. Just as in the days of the old, the elite around the globe have come to the consensus that the pollution is killing the planet. Pollution of air, drinkable water, oceans and arrable soil --- all has added up to the needs for excessive use of pesticides, herbicides, genetically modified crops and mono-culture agribusiness. These advances then produce their own unintended consequences. The arise in many types of cancer, autism, and periodic pandemics, have all pointed out to the interconnectedness of the global habitat. Having reached that conclusion, the sutable narrative had to be found. And the "global warming", changed to "climate change" has been identified as the best. Having found the narrative, career-oriented scientists and the friendly media have been mobilized to help. The nature of the narrative is to AVOID BLAMING THE POLUTERS, and force all people to pay for the remedies through taxes. And the chief polluters, the corporations, would get a new economic lease on life, by getting fresh funds for research and application of "clean" technologies. These are the fantasies of uber-states. Others are politely going along, but are clearly not ready to sign-up to the new "climate change" world government with intrusive inspections as a means of politically pestering those whose politics uber-states do not like.

The author of this article assumes that the climate change politics is driven by honest but perhaps native policies. Hugo Chavez is not as naïve. His speech to the Copenhagen meeting on Climate Change was plain and brilliant. It also clear that China can be easily manipulated by the United States and as a result China is the weakest link that can block or slow down the emerging economies capacity to forge an alternative economic model for the world. I do not know what is Russia's position is with respect to the Climate Change but China has undermined the G77 position by making backroom deal with the Obama admin. China has been playing the Global South card when it wants to steal Africa’s resources but when the chips are down, the Western powers can count of China’s support..

Sarah, a leading Scientist in Russia has accurately predicted the icy weather prevailing in northern hemisphere today. He does not believe Global Warming is being caused by human beings. Back in the past in the years before The Little Ice Age took place, the summers were the hottest on record. Bianca, you are right about the taxes, There are all kinds of Carbon taxes today and they will get billions of dollars from taxing people to support their agenda. They believe that Planet Earth is over populated. Did you know that every Planet in the Solar System is heating up.? For the first time they can see melting ice on Mars. They can see Jupiter being affected. 80 years ago in Outback Queensland the Sun was so hot even green grass was burning. When this takes place in the times ahead people will not be prepared for it because of the lies of Al Gore and others. People are not being told the truth.

This article really muddies the water. The physics is clear, relatively simple and unequivocal - the globe is warming due to an excess of certain gases - far more dense than the trace elements of cfc's which caused holes in the ozone layer. It is easy to calculate if two trains approaching each other on a single railtrack can stop in time - next to impossible to say who will live and who will die and where the bits end up if they cannot. The latter fact does not prove the former cannot happen - and that is precisely the climate skeptic argument, the impossiblity of predicting the consequences in detail is used to "prove" what is inevitable wont take place.