Human Induced Global warming is just another conjob for the ignorant.

That is correct, and that is also the problem.Right now, we don't know the exact percentages from natural and human contributions.It is very possible that no amount of reduction of human contributions will make any difference--after all, warming has been going on since the middle of the last ice age. If this is the case we should be spending our research money on figuring out what to do about the effects of the warming.But before we spend huge sums of money on one fix or another, it would make sense to determine to what extent humans are contributing to the warming. Then we'll know which way to jump.

Before we can effectively address and debate the consequences it might be wise to have a better understanding of the exact problem.And if the contributions from humans are insignificant, and don't change anything, the money would be far better spent elsewhere.

I agree that something above 20% from human activity would certainly be a problem, and one that we could work to reduce. The consequences of sea level rise are serious. Close to a majority of the US population lives along the coast, or soon will, although not all of those are within a meter of two of the current sea level. I agree. That really is my main point.And the current atmosphere, in which global warming proponents literally demonize anyone who suggests that, is both unhealthy and unscientific.Perhaps now is the time to really emphasize nuclear power, using the newer designs that are now available.

The last glaciation had ice thousands of feet thick along most of the northern US.That is not a very good idea, as the various vegetation zones would all be moved far to the south as well. Mostly out of the US.This is why it is a really good idea to figure out which way the frog should jump before we put all of our available wealth into one direction or the other.