The debate on greenhouse gas-induced climate change is polarized, with people on both sides unwilling to agree with the other side. I have studied the issue for a long time, reading a lot of papers on the subject, and doing some analysis myself. I am convinced that CO2emissions do not pose a threat to humankind, though it is likely that some temperature increase will occur. I think that other activities of man have more impact on climate than CO2 emissions. One aspect of the debate is that the burden of proof has to be on the side of the alarmists; the skeptics cannot prove a negative. If temperature does not increase after many years, the hypothesis will be disproven. The problem is that the supporters of the hypothesis have politicized the issue through the corrupt UN, and are moving to immediately impose draconian measures on energy generation that will enrich many of the activists including 3rd world nations who are pushing the warming hypothesis. Here is an article by one of the UN IPCC authors that is true, and I think that supporters of the Hypothesis would have to agree with the specific points made, though they would maintain their religious belief that greenhouse gases will destroy the world.