Choice of disparaging words may direct some at joining the ridicule movement of proponents of a given controversial subject matter, but it also says something of the leader of such movement.

Here is what we know - when we walk inside a conventional non-airconditioned greenhouse, it is much warmer inside than outside, and, when enough heat is trapped, many plants inside die. We also know dumping various pollutants into Earth's atmosphere traps heat, in effect leading to a greenhouse phenomena. Effects of a phenomena which don't mean every month is warmer than the previous, rather, more erratic weather patterns, including snow in August. When charted and averaged out over longer intervals like decades, there is consistent increase in temperature. We even have a clue what sort of temperatures existed in the past and the fact they have been proportionately on the rise with the dawn of Industrial Revolution and the pollution it released - the science takes long to explain for Y!A forums, and has prerequisites such as education... Anyway, using the charts we have, which show consistent rises in temperature that correspond to the increasing amounts of pollutants we release into the atmosphere, where temperature seems directly proportional to the amounts released, what sensible conclusion is there to draw? "It's all coincidence" - perhaps, but as a very wise cliche puts it, the "scoffers mock and are taken off guard, the wise prepare always, just in case".

Whatever side of the global warming one accepts, per whatever justification, there is one inescapable event - the future, circa 2100, then all of us shall be wiser with hind sight's clarity, one way or the other. I favor gradual (not break-neck speed) change while there is still time, if for no other reason than it would entail clean AND renewable energies, some prefer to burry their heads in the sand, even if one day OPEC changes its capricious mind and all those gas-guzzlers will become useless due to unaffordable prices.

Emeritus Professor Les Woodcock:

'The theory of ‘man-made climate change’ is an unsubstantiated hypothesis'

“If you talk to real scientists who have no political interest, they will tell you there is nothing in global warming. It’s an industry which creates vast amounts of money for some people.”

‘climate change’ is a meaningless term used as a sop by big business to create money.'

Physicist Dr. Denis Rancourt, a former professor and environmental science researcher at the University of Ottawa, has officially bailed out of the man-made global warming movement:

"The entire man-made global warming movement is nothing more than a corrupt social phenomenon. It is as much psychological and social phenomenon as anything else.”

“I argue that by far the most destructive force on the planet is power-driven financiers and profit-driven corporations and their cartels backed by military might; and that the global warming myth is a red herring that contributes to hiding this truth. In my opinion, activists who, using any justification, feed the global warming myth have effectively been co-opted, or at best neutralized,”

“You have this army of university scientists and they have to pretend like they are doing important research without ever criticizing the powerful interests in a real way. So what do they look for, they look for elusive sanitized things like acid rain, global warming,” he added. This entire process “helps to neutralize any kind of dissent.”

“They are all virtually all service intellectuals. They will not truly critique, in a way that could threaten the power interests that keep them in their jobs. The tenure track is just a process to make docile and obedient intellectuals that will then train other intellectuals,”

Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University, and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, converted from believer to a skeptic about global warming:

“My opinion is that there is absolutely no proof that carbon dioxide has anything to do with any impending catastrophe. The science has, quite simply, gone awry. In fact, it’s not even science any more, it’s anti-science. There’s no proof, it’s just projections and if you look at the models people such as Gore use, you can see they cherry pick the ones that support their beliefs.”

Geologist Peter Sciaky self described “liberal and a leftist”:

“I do not know a single geologist who believes that [global warming] is a man-made phenomenon.”