Medary.com

Pushing politics and religion aside, and pushing the science back to the front where it should be, The American Physical Society re-opens the question of anthropogenic global warming:

With this issue of Physics & Society, we kick off a debate concerning one of the main conclusions of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN body which, together with Al Gore, recently won the Nobel Prize for its work concerning climate change research. There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. Since the correctness or fallacy of that conclusion has immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere, we thought it appropriate to present a debate within the pages of P&S concerning that conclusion. This editor (JJM) invited several people to contribute articles that were either pro or con. Christopher  Monckton responded with this issue's article that argues against the correctness of the IPCC conclusion, and a pair from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, David Hafemeister and Peter Schwartz, responded with this issue's article in favor of the IPCC conclusion. We, the editors of P&S, invite reasoned rebuttals from the authors as well as further contributions from the physics community. Please contact me (jjmarque@sbcglobal.net) if you wish to jump into this fray with comments or articles that are scientific in nature. However, we will not publish articles that are political or polemical in nature. Stick to the science! (JJM)

This is exactly what SHOULD be happening--what should have been happening for the past decade.  Vigorous, acrimonious, honest scientific debate, bringing the most talented scientific minds on Earth to bear on the subject.  Not global politicians and bigwig-wannabe's jetting to exotic locations to plan the world's economy, but scientists going at it tooth and nail on Internet forums and in scientific journals, hammering out exactly what it is we know, what we don't know, what we think we know that is wrong, and what at the last, everyone . . . EVERYONE can agree is actually so.

The topic is too important to leave to the politicians.  We KNOW where the politicians' interest lie . . . in more money and power arrogated to themselves, and to hell with everyone else.  I'd rather trust in scientists who hold to a higher standard--objective truth, proved through the scientific method.