What I don't get is all this hype about reducing consumption. With recycling, and abundant energy (assuming we keep working on ways to produce MORE electricity) we are not really going to reach the END of resources. Eventually - there is no doubt about this - we will have to start going to space and begin to take advantage of the asteroids and other easy to reach resources on uninhabited worlds (I know - I assume there will be life somewhere other than here). The only way to do that is to continue to develop new energy sources such as Fusion, or in the future some form of beamed solar technology. We will never reach that if we try to artificially limit ourselves based on gloom and doom prophets that don't take into account the fact that if we have cheaper and more abundant energy, we can develop new ways to deal with issues that are currently unattainable with current technology. All this green hype is actually going to make it worse for less developed countries on the planet, such as in Africa. The price to put in new energy resources will be prohibitively expensive, making it almost impossible to ever develop some of those nations so they can overcome unending droughts. Things like desalination plants for instance - to deal with their fresh water needs on a large scale, it will require things like Nuclear power to make it a reality.

There is a consensus that God exists. Yet science would say that God doesn't exist since science cannot show any evidence of God's existence. So per your stated opinions here, you don't believe in God or a creator, true?

Scientific evidence does not "clearly show" AGW - it show-ed (past tense) warming from many sources, none of which clearly could be shown to be the main culprit other than the Sun, the Oceans heat absorption, and other natural causes. Science has speculated that man-related sources have caused warming, but other than evidence that it is, on average, warmer in and around man-made habitations, there is nothing showing that any warming that may have occurred is primarily attributable to man. Study of the historic climate sources (tree rings, ice cores, etc) show that the earth has warmed and cooled via natural events over the centuries, in magnitudes much larger than anything we have seen on our short time on the planet. As a matter of fact, it has been much warmer in the past than it is today, and also much colder. One thing science has also shown, is that CO2 is required by plants to process for growing, and conversion to Oxygen. If anything, what observable phenomena is showing is that CO2 is increasing, and there is a very good reason as to why - global deforestation. Probably a better answer to our CO2 issue is to develop biomass replacement (such as algae) that consume CO2, and large-scale tree planting projects in open spaces not used for farming or other food production or upkeep to help reduce CO2 levels naturally.

Oh? So that is why there has been no warming in the last 7+ years and yet CO2 has increased significantly during that time? Actually they have documented that it got cooler. Validating "models" of climate variability is not the same as valid "science" showing repeatable, validated phenomena where a sequence of events and conditions yields the same result over and over again. They have never gotten to that point with any of the "models", and the science to date has not proven anything other than it is warmer today then it was during the Little Ice Age.

Yes, except for the fact that AGW believers are touting this story as proof the science is proven. The review had nothing to do with the science of AGW, yet the headline was "Global Warming Scientist Vindicated". In the (supposedly) unbiased world of the MSM, how do you think that story went, especially for the folks who read it on The Huffington Post where the story cut off before it explained the limited scope of their inquiry.

Check the Committee report - they were only looking into compliance with Freedom of Information compliance regarding the climate data. They "commented" on other issues. But their conclusion is that - and I laugh:

"Conclusion 2 In addition, insofar as we have been able to consider accusations of dishonesty—for example, Professor Jones’s alleged attempt to “hide the decline”— we consider that there is no case to answer. Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, that “global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity”.184 It was not our purpose to examine, nor did we seek evidence on, the science produced by CRU. It will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel to look in detail into all the evidence to determine whether or not the consensus view remains valid. "

So in other words - he didn't commit any egregious FOI violation by not releasing data, thus, his scientific reputation is intact...

Huh?