> From my perspective, the activists started their political campaign to regulate CO2 back when the Science (IPCC FAR) said "the observed increase could be larg

> From my perspective, the activists started their political campaign to regulate CO2 back when the Science (IPCC FAR) said "the observed increase could be largely due to this natural variability" and I have been suspicious of their motives ever since. The IPCC report is typically more conservative, as it requires a consensus of a large number of scientists. However, even in this case, this phrase is a qualifier that follows a number of stronger statements (and also notes that it could be hiding further warming). For example, the executive summary (we are certain of the following), point two ends with > These increases will enhance the greenhouse effect, resulting on average in an additional warming of the Earth's surface. The earlier Charney report (1979), has in its summary > Their consensus has been that increasing carbon dioxide will lead to a warmer earth and > If carbon dioxide continues to increase, the study group finds no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible Even in 1979, long before the FAR, it was clear that carbon dioxide would alter the climate. Claiming that activists were jumping the gun on the scientific case in 1990 is not fair. They may have ulterior motives, but wanting to regulate CO2 in 1990 is not evidence of this. The science has significantly progressed since then, such that the evidence is now even clearer. There are arguments to suggest that it would be cheaper to pay for the adaptation to climate change, but unfortunately it is now very clear that the costs for that will be high.