I consider that beliefs are generally faith based or rationally based.

It seems to me that the unconscious plays a large part in faith, and
that rational consideration is mainly a function of conscious mind.

We are in great difficulty, it seems to me, when matters which are
appropriate for rational analysis, are taken on faith.

This seems to be the situation on global warming. Any rational
consideration of the topic is rejected by the faith, on quite
specious grounds.

When reputable scientists give an honest assessment of global warming
the alarmists, immediately they realize that the opinion is contrary
to the prophecies which they cherish, attack the scientist on the
basis that he has produced reports for mining or oil companies, in
the past, and is therefore not to be trusted.

The United Nations, probably the most enthusiastic in prophesying
doom, and vilifying the role of humans, is the darling of the faith.
The UN's IPCC is the highest authority, to them on science.

The UN does, indeed, employ top scientists to produce reports.

They then publish a Summary for Policymakers, purporting to be based
on the authority of the scientific reports. The summary is not
prepared by scientists, but by the publicists, who present the
material so that certainty is given to highly speculative parts of
the reports.

A recent case in Queensland, Australia, was brought by
conservationists against Xstrata, to oppose an approval for
coalmining on the basis that coal produced greenhouse gases which
produced global warming.

The United Nations summary came to the attention of the judge, Greg
Koppenol, after evidence had closed, so he called for submissions on
it and took it into account.

The summary had the expected assertions about greenhouse gases being
produced by human activity and global warming increasing. The graph
attached was from a scientific report. It appears to have been
doctored to emphasise global warming, but only by addition, not by
alteration.

By carefully reading the key to the graph, and scrutinizing the graph
itself, the judge found that it showed that global warming peaked in
1998. There has been no global warming since 1998, but there has been
some cooling.

The total warming of the globe in one hundred years to 2006 is one
half of one degree. The cooling since 1998 is one twentieth of one
degree.

With all the fuss about the greenhouse gases we are alleged to be
producing, the globe has not warmed since 1998, and has cooled during
the last eight years. No wonder the greenies want to ditch global
warming, and switch to the mantra of climate change. They are looking
to preserve the movement, and the faith, and to disguise and hide
evidence that there is no warming caused by human activity.

The web address of the case is:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QLRT/2007/33.html

Relevant extract from the case :

[17] Finally, the Fourth Assessment Report of the UN's
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Summary for Policymakers
was released on 2 February 2007.[6] It relevantly concluded that is
very likely that human-induced GHGs are causing global warming, and
that most of the observed increases in globally averaged temperatures
since the mid-20th century are very likely due to the observed
increase in anthropogenic (human-caused) GHG concentrations. However,
a close examination of the global mean temperature chart (Fig SPM-3),
which was said to support that view, reveals that the last 106 years
had 3 periods of cooling (1900-1910, 1944-1976, 1998-2006) and 2
periods of warming (1910-1944, 1976-1998) and that temperatures rose
only 0.5°C from 1900 to 2006. The largest temperature change in the
20th century was a 0.75°C rise between 1976 and 1998, But the fact
that very similar rises have previously occurred (1852-1878, 0.65°C
and 1910-1944, 0.65°C) was not specifically mentioned or causally
explained in the Summary. Also not mentioned or causally explained is
the fact that temperatures have actually fallen 0.05°C over the last
8 years.

[18] If a comparison is made of temperatures over the last 55 years
(1951-2006), as the IPCC presumably did in reaching its conclusion,
the chart shows that average temperatures increased from 13.85°C
(1951) to 14.45°C (2006)—an increase of 0.6°C. As "most" of that
increase is said by the IPCC to be due to increases in GHGs, it
follows that the temperature increase of concern is about 0.45°C
(0.45°C being 75% of or "most" of 0.6°C ). With all respect, a
temperature increase of only about 0.45°C over 55 years seems a
surprisingly low figure upon which to base the IPCC's concerns about
its inducing many serious changes in the global climate system during
the 21st century.