[simbob]

If GW caused by carbon is such a real threat, shouldn't we be eliminating all nonesseential use of energy?

How is our failure to address the threat adequately relevant to the determination of the existence of the threat, the cause of the threat or the scope of the threat?

As to consensus, the use of the word is an understatement. The overwhelming weight of peer-reviewed scientific opinion indicates that human activity, particularly the burning of fossil fuels and the reduction of the rain forests, has dramatically increased the concentrations of CO2 and ozone in the atmosphere, reduced their re-processing and accelerated the warming of the planet. The existence of natural cycles does not refute the reality of our actions or of their effect.

Could the scientists be wrong? Sure.

But they're less likely to be wrong than a cranky guy who's got an audience for his opinions because he got rich selling storm stories. His is a flat-earth argument of conclusions for which he offers no support other than his prejudices.