With credit to all the posters, I have to say that as far as I'm concerned, pending future discoveries or developments the issue has been more or less settled, at least in the science community. While there ARE naysayers, they are in a (very) minor minority - far more so than can be explained by 'bought results' or similar conspiracy theories. Having a foot in the door in a research institute, I am fairly certain that there is not a global conspiracy at work. There is a TREND that climate studies have gotten more attention - and thus more funding - but this has not been tied to exact results, at least hereabouts. (My foot in the door is, admittedly, a doctorate in biochemistry, not climate, but he is heavily into funding politics for the entire institute and writes (some of) the institute's funding requests. He's also done some noticeable papers on medication targeting cancerous cells only (HAMLET), incidentally. Not in itself a revolution, but a baby step further towards a definite cure.).
What I find more interesting is, what now?
Now, there is a certain bias in what to do with things. Most of us, I am sure, would prefer our lifestyle to be less affected, or improved, by any changes. This may actually not be impossible, but certain negative changes are, I figure, likely or even unavoidable. Ironically, those countries that can least afford doing anything about it is to some extent also the ones hardest hit. Unfortunately I think that eliminating CO2 emissions is impossible, at the least in short-term. Emission trading appears to be, at best, a failure, both as concept and particularily in execution. To my knowledge, buying emission quotas from industrializing countries has little effect, because they will just nod, smile, and expand their industry and emissions anyway; there is no oversight. China has a valid complaint in that, 'the west' has polluted for 200 years to reach their level of development, now they can't? If you view the world as 'the west vs. the world', at least. I'd hope we don't.).
Now, there are a couple of unholy alliances around. The petroleum industry is not adverse to 'buying' scientists. As an unrelated example, BP buying envionmentalist scientists around the mexico gulf. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10731408. That is not the only one, of course - the USA in particular is dependent on foreign oil and oil prices, and some of those foreign interests are at least partially hostile towards the US. Going towards non-fossil fuel types would reduce that dependency, or even negate it, if a good enough alternative could be found and implemented. I do believe that is a reason that stands on its own two feet, though, without needing to be hidden; as such, it doesn't NEED global warming as impetus. New ways of producing both hydrogen and biodiesel (Algoil) use algae, which might prove a very interesting - and effective - way to produce new and environmentally friendly(ish) fuels, while at the same time eating CO2. How's that for profit? Not all oil products can be replaced easily, however, which is a reason why we really should try to reduce fossil fuel dependency - so that true dependencies last as long as possible. (Certain types of plastic, for instance, has proven rather difficult to replace.).
I would caution against overstating the rising ocean levels; that in itself will be no cause to evacuate coastal cities GENERALLY; many estimate a rise of 1 meter by 2100, which will have little effect. Well, unless you live in Holland, Venice, or floodplains like in Egypt or Iraq, or islands like the Phillipines. Some revised estimates pont towards 7 meters as more likely; that would be a cause for somewhat more concern.
Some personal observations which may or may not affect my view on climate change...
1: At the family cottage - it is up in the mountains - I have pictures from my childhood. During Easter, snow would reach the roof, and we had to dig to get down to the door; we could not see out the windows, and entering or leaving was through a snow tunnel. (It wasn't usually THAT severe, but there was lots of snow; past head height.). Today? We may have to shovel some snow off the porch, but it has not been past knee deep the last ten years, and by easter the sun side of the cottage has a few patches of snow.
2: Sea levels has changed DRASTICALLY throughout geological history. You can find fossil sea shells on 1000 meters' height.... but is that change in LAND height / tectonic shifts, or sea height? There is a lot of variables here, so I am a little cautious about accepting single answer theories on that one. Even then, estimates of sea level change in the next 100 years vary a lot. Again, wether this is caused by man made climate change or periodic variables does not matter insofar as that it IS happening and we do have to do something about it. For my part, I make sure I have an apartment on a high area, and snicker softly at the high sealevel apartment prices. (My country is fairly mountainous so even worst case scenarios will have little impact, although some islands will have to be evacuated in time... if there's still anyone there by then.).
3: The overwhelming focus on temperature is, I believe, misleading. The other side of the coin is that weater will become more extreme - which we are clearly seeing. Hottest month in recorded history, coldest month in recorded history, worst floods, most rain, melting rates, most hurricanes (only a few years ago we ran out of letters for hurricanes and had to restart on A - that's another first time in recorded history) - records are broken every month. Climate is changing towards extremes, and we need to be able to predict that change. So far the global warming theorists seem to be doing a better job of it than those that say it's not happening. If it makes someone more happy to say it's due to martians using death rays than, say, carbon emissions, that doesn't really bother me; it is the predictability that is important. Why it doesn't bother me? I don't think our political system is ABLE to do anything about it no matter how well documented it is, resultingly, ithe cause is largely immaterial. Perhaps something can be done on a national level, but on a global level? Not a chance. Too many diverse interests and hostilities. I would love to be proven wrong, though. The UN is being restructured, and certain nations may loose their veto rights, which may reduce some of the stalemates that has blackened the organization... we shall see.
And yeah, a global thermonuclear war with enough fallout to cause a nuclear winter will probably change the weather evolution a bit. Less people, massive hurricanes, and a couple of decades of winter.... yeah, that should fix it right up.
Might be a tad drastic though. Also, however tempting it might be to suggest killing off a certain amount of world population, those that suggest it should be the first to go.. just on principle. If it is necessary, they should be willing to take the natural consequence of that necessity.