[This doesn't sound like settled science to me] - NYTimes.com

"The best guesses are not carved in stone," says Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeler at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "There well may be surprises, pleasant or unpleasant."

Is 350 the New 450? | GlobalWarming.org

Morello quotes Sanford University scientist Stephen Schneider on why 350 ppm is better than 450 ppm: “We’re betting the planet. There’s no such thing as a safe level [of CO2 concentrations]. There’s a level of very risky, versus mildly risky.”

This is the familiar rhetoric that we’re ”gambling with the only planet we have.” As should be obvious by now (alas, it isn’t), Schneider and other cap-and-traders propose to gamble with the only economy we have. They talk as if there are no risks of climate policy, only risks of climate change. I would paraphrase Schneider as follows: There’s disastrous (stabilization at 450 ppm by 2050) and there’s catastrophic (stabilization at 350 ppm).

Religious Groups Push for Climate Change [Swindle] Legislation - US News and World Report

At the same time, religion remains a dividing line in public opinion on the environment. Despite polling by progressive groups on support for climate legislation, a recent Pew survey found that just a third of white evangelicals believe global warming is caused by humans. And only 39 percent of black Protestants accept the evidence for human-caused climate change. The group most convinced that humans are to blame? Those unaffiliated with any religious tradition.