Well, though the truth is certainly not by a show of hands, it is impressive how successful the alleged conspiracy is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_changeThe citations, they're everywhere.
Back to the main point. There is a controversy, yes. Survey enough scientists and you'll find quacks eventually. Look at the consensus on this, though. Why would they all want to keep their mouths shut? Any new scientists would certainly have every incentive to prove them wrong. Look at the modelling of the atom- it has gone from just a sphere to a fruit-cake to a planet with orbits to a tiny point surrounded by things that are there and not there at the same time. Science advances by challenging old ideas and replacing them- that's where the funding is, not defending old ideas.
On Coleman's analysis. First, the man has a vested interest in disproving global warming. He was clearly paid to do the interview, and would not dare to disagree with the Auto channel. If that's not science for money, I don't know what is. Clearly, we all need to learn more about our climate before we attempt geo-engineering, but the idea that well-connected manufacturers want to attempt de-industrialization is ludicrous. It would be against their self-interest because no-one attracted by the prospect would ever buy their products. It's like a Hindu selling beef and settling down to a steak dinner when he/she gets home- it's so far beyond hypocritical that it's surreal.
Furthermore, though CO2 is something produced naturally, so are arsenic and botulism. Let's say we have a river with 10 ppm As, and we argue that since Arsenic is natural, we can add more. So we bump it up to 50 ppm and wonder what happened to all the fish. Likewise for botulism- it's inside us, literally in our turds, but when a septic tank goes bad we run for the hills. It's quickly upsetting the balance that is the danger. When you look at those swings in temperature, you know that those were natural. However, what Coleman didn't mention was that if the warming had occurred as a natural event the hubbub wouldn't have started. The whole problem is that the warming is not in tune with any observed cycles, and started in earnest as we burned more fossil fuels. While there will be natural warming and cooling, think of it like thermostat that once spun freely, but now someone else is trying to crank it up. Sure, if you really heave you can move it down, but it's much easier for it to go up. In addition, the homogeneity of the opposition is startling- nearly all of them conservative, libertarian, or have vested interests, while those supporting the idea of global warming are very diverse- climate researchers, biologists, physicists (note I'm referring to the societies of these people and the people themselves) all of whom certainly disagree on just about everything political. That proves that the opposition carries the burden of proof with regard to disproving conspiracy or cultural beliefs. I'd feel the same way if it were socialists and marxists, mind you. This comes from an incredibly well cited Wikipedia article, and I didn't use anything that wasn't cited.
Again, it is the issue of honest mistakes that lead to such disagreements. Furthermore, don't forget that greenhouse gases kept our planet warm at night without us helping (i.e., they were at low levels) which means that even a small amount leads to big results. As we crank out the CO2, methane (CH4), and other such gases, we upset the balance and lead to the potential for serious toejam on the part of our food supply. As that warms the planet, we enter into a spiral. Remember, this assumes that we keep warming like we do now for hundreds of years. If we stop warming, then it doesn't happen. That's the big point that I believe was missed. Time is critical. Wait too long and the 'heat spiral' (so to speak) becomes inevitable, but it's not too late to prevent it. If it has slowed down (and I don't see that in the data) it is by the result of our efforts. Don't forget India and China entering into the world stage, either. Billions of people living like Americans do now will not lead to good effects for the climate or pollution.
-Penguin
