|Fair and balanced ?|
On his weblog, The Reference Frame, Lubos Motl (European anthropomorphic climate change denier or as he prefers to be called: climate realist) discourages people from using Wikipedia to learn about Global Warming. It's easy to see why he would have that opinion, when you read the entries (from various Wikipedia sources) below:
Climate change denial is a term used to describe organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons. Typically, these attempts take the rhetorical form of legitimate scientific debate, while not adhering to the actual principles of that debate. Climate change denial has been associated with the energy lobby, industry advocates and free market think tanks, often in the United States. Some commentators describe climate change denial as a particular form of denialism.
The Royal Society conducted a survey that found ExxonMobil had given US$ 2.9 million to American groups that "misinformed the public about climate change," 39 of which "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence". In 2006, the Royal Society issued a demand that ExxonMobil withdraw funding for climate change denial. The letter, which was leaked to the media, drew criticism, notably from Timothy Ball and others, who argued the society attempted to "politicize the private funding of science and to censor scientific debate."
ExxonMobil has denied the accusations that it has been trying to mislead the public about global warming. A spokesman, Gantt Walton, has stated that ExxonMobil's funding of research does not mean that it acts to influence the research, and that ExxonMobil supports taking action to curb the output of greenhouse gasses. Gannt stated, "The recycling of this type of discredited conspiracy theory diverts attention from the real challenge at hand: how to provide the energy needed to improve global living standards while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions." 
In 2005, the New York Times reported that Philip Cooney, former lobbyist and "climate team leader" at the American Petroleum Institute and President George W. Bush's chief of staff of the Council on Environmental Quality, had "repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents." Sharon Begley reported in Newsweek that Cooney "edited a 2002 report on climate science by sprinkling it with phrases such as 'lack of understanding' and 'considerable uncertainty.'" Cooney reportedly removed an entire section on climate in one report, whereupon an oil lobbyist sent him a fax saying "You are doing a great job." Cooney announced his resignation two days after the story of his tampering with scientific reports broke, but a few days later it was announced that Cooney would take up a position with ExxonMobil.
Several journalists have argued that efforts to downplay the significance of climate change resemble the campaign by tobacco lobbyists, after being confronted with new data linking cigarettes to cancer, to shift public perception of the discoveries toward that of a myth, unwarranted claim, or exaggeration rather than mainstream scientific theory. In 2006, The Guardian discussed similarities in the methods of groups funded by Exxon, and those of the tobacco giant Philip Morris, including direct attacks on peer-reviewed science, and attempts to create public controversy and doubt.
Steve here. My own views on all this stuff is that what we are or are not doing to the atmosphere is dwarfed in comparison to what we are doing to the oceans. Both happen because of Industry (which most certainly includes ExxonMobil) ... BUT .... Industry exists to feed the needs of the population.
And therefore it is that VERY THING ===> POPULATION, that is the problem, in the ultimate analysis.
So what are we to do?
Don't ask me, I'm the question man, not the answer man. But a few ideas nevertheless ...
1) If you don't have kids, commit to not having any. Easy to say, tough to do. I love my kids, I can't imagine life without them. Then there's the "human right" to procreate. This has already been challenged, in China, with its one-birth per couple policy, since the 1960's. It's worked too, for China. India is about to eclipse China in population, if they haven't already done so.
2) If you have kids, don't have any more, and encourage the ones you have already not to have any. Again, really tough. See above.
3) Go green, that is to say, conserve. Don't have to drive? Good, don't then. Consolidate various trips into one long safari so to speak. The Internet is loaded with ideas on how to do this and many other things to be a true conservative, plus there is the good old common sense we're all born with, in varying degrees, natch.
4) Educate the masses. Poor people, who by far make up the bulk of humanity, tend to have more sex, which leads to more babies. They also lack proper education re birth control. An educated masses is a more careful masses. Of course, going down this road also leads to controversial policies and politics.
5) Get off this planet and expand into space. We'll do this I'm sure, over the next few centuries, but it will be a footrace to see if we don't kill ourselves first, probably with some nasty biological agent that escapes from a lab. ONE advantage of space exploration is we'll need a lot more people working than are working now to do it right, and that can happen with better education (see 4) above), which would lead to lower unemployment and a better life for everyone.
6) Eliminate corporate taxation. Corporate taxes hurt everyone, because you know darn well those costs will just be passed on to the consumers, i.e. and to whit: each of us. Corporate taxes just slow everyone down. They're especially BAD on the medium-sized and small businesses. The large corporations hire armies of accountants to make sure they pay as little as possible, if any at all (read "The Firm" by John Grisham for more on that, plus as an added bonus, it's far more entertaining than the Tom Cruise film which covers only 2/3's of the book).
Then again, the money the big firms pay the Accountants to save said taxes is an expense in itself and therefore to a great extent: a waste, except of course, for the Accounting industry. ;-) On the other hand, but in a very small way, it's worth it for the big firms, because those Accountants save them a lot! Meanwhile, back on the farm ... the little guy is still getting screwed, because he can't afford those Big 8 Accounting firms (or is it 7 now, thanks to Enron?).
My point is people have to pay twice. People as individuals are taxed on their income, and when they pay say, gasoline taxes, they get hit again. And for what? To keep government Accountants employed? That's like saying we need tolls to pay the pensions of toll takers. Please, what is being produced here, other than misery all around? Better to pour that money into better education, would be my ride. Let those toll takers learn how to teach, and the Accountants teach how to conserve. That would be IMO a much better use of resources, otherwise, it's like giving Army grunts busy work: In the morning dig a big hole, in the afternoon fill it in. Who wins? Nobody, not even the hole.
In the long run and regarding the Energy companies such as Exxon-Mobil and their disinformation ways, what are you going to do? I'd drive to a protest rally to complain about their antics, but I'd have to use their product to get there, and that my friends, is the great irony.
On the lighter side and a bit off-topic, check out this latest "America's most viral video", which should remind us of why we fight, whatever we fight: