Global warming debate

I'm getting tired of reading stuff like this: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18363-debate-heats-up-over-ipcc-melting-glaciers-claim.html

It seems if you say something off the cuff, and/or non-peer reviewed that supports the hypothesis of global warming it'll end up, eventually, being treated as fact. With the UEA leaks, it really is time for the a clear peer-reviewed assessment of what is actually happening, a bunch of hypothesis and for some proper scientific findings. Most of all we need to sort out all this man-made stuff.

My proposal:
a) Start again with standard, proper, tested, peer-reviewed science
b) Stop treating sceptics as Neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers, and let them participate
c) Separate the 2 key questions by asking 2 of these three questions:
1. Is the planet getting warmer overall?
2. Is it natural (sunspots, earth core changes, solar wind, whatever) or;
3. If not is it industrialisation or other anthropogenic activity?
d) If the answers to 1 is no - then let's stop panicking everyone.
e) If the answers to 1 and 2 are yes, then we probably cannot do much about it, but can reduce our impact on the planet
f) If the answer to 1 and 3 are yes, then let's properly evaluate how to reduce human impact.,

I am fully in favour of proportionate activity to reduce our impact on the planet whatever the answers. In fact those people without children (me included) can trump any "saving the planet for my kids" claim, as our impact on the planet dies with us.

So yes:
* reduce, reuse, recycle,
* do it NOW
So no to:
* faffing around with carbon credits that end up closing a perfectly serviceable steelworks in Redcar for financial and geopolitical reasons (see: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6798052/What-links-the-Copenhagen-conference-with-the-steelworks-closing-in-Redcar.html)
* ridiculous and unachievable carbon policies
* penalising third world nations who want and need to develop
* expensive (and in the current cold winter when we need them most: useless) wind farms
* a failure to invest in tidal and wave energy production which is available 24x7 and permanently available and therefore a much more sensible alternative to wind farms that need oil/coal/gas/nuclear power station backup precisely because wind is irregular
* useless jobsworths in local government taking our hard earned money in taxes to pay for
* stupid energy saving schemes where nPower send out unsolicited light bulbs
* scrapping of incandescent light bulbs that are inefficient in the sense of light output, but contribute heat to a house when it needs it. The heat might be waste, but the lights are generally on in colder times - it's disgraceful that this is ignored in calculations, and that the disposal of mercury and other poisons in low-energy bulbs is conveniently ignored by the lawmakers.