According to 'The Australian' (Oct 24, 2009) climate change denial is now a 'psychological condition'.

"THE most prominent form of denial is displayed by climate sceptics who reject all or most of the main propositions established by climate science...it calls for conflict with their fundamental beliefs, namely that it is natural for humans to exploit the Earth's resources, that economic growth should not be disrupted (and) that governments should not intervene in the marketplace.

For such sceptics the idea of human-induced global warming can give rise to cognitive dissonance, the uncomfortable feeling people have when they begin to understand that something they believe to be true is contradicted by evidence. Rejection of the scientific claims resolves the dissonance and thus removes the unpleasant feeling."

In stark contrast to 'The Australian''s claims, those who have evaluated both sides of the argument, can both scientifically and logically conclude that the 'evidence' supporting human-induced global warming is minimal and untrustworthy. However well presented, convincing pro-climate change 'facts' have been swiftly and scientifically refuted (see 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'). There are no 'uncomfortable feelings' that arise when global warming is spouted continuously across the world's media, but rather a sadness that more people are unknowingly accepting these radical claims, and genuinely believing that driving their car to and from work is contributing to global warming.

The key concern the article raises is the 'psychological condition' label, falsely applied to this group of thinkers, who have looked beyond the standard media's message of 'global warming is going to kill us all'. Instead of the United States' claimed 'mental health epidemic', you have healthy, analytical people rising up against the majority to reveal false claims. But, if the article's claims are carried out to their conclusion, earlier rather than later intervention from the State is likely for anti-global warmists. This article supports early intervention for psychotic disorders and a mental health site claims that 'adopting a 'wait and see' approach is never a good idea, as a psychosis illness always requires treatment, and the earlier that treatment is obtained the better'.

It is time brothers and sisters to cling to Christ's promises:
Rev 3:11  Behold, I come quickly.
Mat 24:4  Take heed that no man deceive you.
1 Cor 10:13 God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able.

We must 'Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.' (1 Thess 5:21) and 'be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear' (1 Peter 3:15). Please search out both sides of this hottly debated topic before coming to your own conclusion.