Sigh.

I was worried I was going to get this kind of reply. I'm going to try to deal with all of this now, and unless you bring up something particularly compelling to dismiss any of this, I probably won't bother replying again.

To begin with, while I empathise with some concerns about the IPCC - there has certainly been plenty of accusation that there's too much politics, not enough science in the IPCC - including by scientists who contribute to its final reports. So there is some truth to your suggestion that the IPCC is a non-scientific entity. After all, one of it's tasks is to suggest policy on climate change, something that I think you'd agree should involve a large number of experts from diverse fields, not just climate scientists.

But to suggest that the basic tenets - that climate change exists, is getting worse, and that recent human industrial activities are likely a major factor - are unscientific is completely bogus.

Despite the fact you can find dissenting opinions among scientists, a considerable number of major relevant scientific organizations (e.g. those dealing with climate sciences) take the official stance that climate change is real and human activity is probably a major cause of recent changes. The Wikipedia entry in the link above has summary information and links to original sources. A handful of cherry picked anomalies do not make the data espoused by this organizations "preposterous", they simply indicate the complexity of the field.

I will deal briefly with two of your examples:

First, climate change on Mars. I do not see how detecting this has anything to do say about the causes of climate change on Earth. No one claimed mankinds activity caused this, and suggesting so is a rather underhanded tactic.

Secondly, and much more relevantly, is your link to articles about the controversy at the American Chemical Society. It's important to note that while this group still maintains official support of the opinion that climate change is influenced by human activity, some of it's members are campaigning to change that. Whether these members are a majority is unsure, as is whether any of those dissenters are climate scientists or chemists without expertise in the area. Given the well known opinion of all major climate science organisations, I'd bet that most of the dissenters are chemists working in a different area.

This point is extremely important. I do not know if the majority of scientists believe that global warming is caused by man. Scientists area a diverse bunch. But I don't see what an engineer, or a biologist, would have to say on the issue. They may be able to better evaluate the data than a non-scientist, but if we're going to trust someone to interpret the data, why not go directly to the most expert, the climate scientists? And if I can refer you to the Wikipedia article again, the climate scientists are in agreement.

From here on in, I don't really know how to deal with your post. Some of it smacks of typical "conspiracy theory" paranoia. I certainly agree that bureaucrats aren't always acting with the interests of the public, or the environment, chief in mind. But this is not some grand conspiracy. While the scientific argument is at least a one-sided debate, the debate over policy to deal with climate change is less clear-cut.

And in some places, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Solar power is a no-brainer. But some of your examples are obscure. Banning smoking is surely more about making our living environment more pleasant than about climate change.

In one paragraph you decry the destruction of economic opportunity to protect endangered species. The possibility of such species having value to the ecosystem or local community is discounted. You conveniently ignore the side of the argument that does not support your anti-green, anti-government viewpoint. In the next paragraph, you reverse your position on the importance of the economy when you decry the spraying for the painted-apple-moth. This kind of inconsistency betrays a pre-formed opinion that will turn any environmental effort, whether failed or successful, into an argument for "your side". It would be better to approach such measures level-headedly, and most importantly, while I agree you should remain skeptical of political moves, trust the science.