You assume too much, None of my posts have anything to do with denying anything other than bad science.  I have never even said whether Global Warming is real or not.  Because it was not part of any discussion I have had.  I have talked about AGW.  Which is a supposition without substantiation at this point.  But I have not even denied that.  I have merely pointed out the science is not settled. If that is "denial" to you, then please return when you learn how science works.

Science is never settled. That's what makes it science. You replace one theory with a better one, when new scientific work with evidence is presented. Until then you accept the consensus, and that is for Global warming, as have been said earlier in this thread.

Not accepting the consensus is working against it, all out denialer or not, especially in a subject as critical as this. 

Which consensus? That CO2 is a green house gas and as a result we humans, producers of CO2, are having some affect on the environment? Sure. I also accept that if I jump up and down that the kinetic energy causes the earth to wobble slightly.  

But do I accept that humans are the primary cause of temperature fluctuations? No. No I don't. Does that mean I'm working against it? Does my lack of faith mean that I'm damaging cosmic forces? I produce more energy than I consume and it's all from solar and geothermal.  

If you accept the consensus, what are you doing about it? 

AGW isn't a theory. It's a hypothesis. We have observed a long-term warming trend and a hypothesis has been made that it's caused by humans burning fossil fuels resulting in an increase in green house gasses in the air.  That's the hypothesis.  But that's not a theory. It hasn't been tested and the fact that atmospheric temperatures aren't increasing despite the steady increase of CO2 doesn't bode well for the validity of the hypothesis.

And you say the subject is "critical". It is? Compared to what? And if you deem it critical, I ask again, what you are personally doing about it? 

The article quoted by Dr Guy has one hypothesis. Read it if you want.

You are not the problem. Governments are. (your government is a part of a very suspicious and small no signer group in UN treaties against global warming) Also, humans are not the primary cause of global warming, it is more complex than that, however that does not mean our influence on global warming is negligible. Read the science. Sun etc. varies global temperature than anything we do, but the small increases we contribute is still critical for the third world. (Seychelles is on the road to total destruction atm. ) It is very interesting how most of the world agree on global warming, except the US and a few other countries. As you have said, politics is not accepted here, but the money influence in US politics contributes greatly to your country's media coverage of this topic and subsequent critical thinking of science. 

My society and government is not the problem here. I'm actually considering if force is needed to solve this problem. At the moment we still have time for diplomatic solutions, but force might be needed later in this century. The question if war against the first world is acceptable when global warming hurts the third world because of first world pollution is a highly interesting subject on it's own. 

The answer to that question is very easy to find if you have actually read any of the summaries on global warming. It's also come up a few times in this thread. The total heat added to our global system has not decreased or paused at all. If you want to cherry pick certain indicators (air temperature) because you come to the table with pre-existing beliefs you'd like to see reinforced, then yes, you'll find what you're looking for. Global warming has not paused or stopped though. Where do you think all this increased total heat is going if surface temperatures have not risen as much in the past 15 years? They have still risen btw, just at a slower pace - so they have basically stalled but still at record temperatures. Assuming that the data is referring to surface temperatures only instead of the total amount of heat in the system is a favourite fallacy of denialists.

Consensus does not belong in science. period. It was not a better theory of phlogiston that came up with the concept of air being composed of gases.  It was going against the supposed consensus.

I frankly do not care what the 'consensus' says.  I only care what the science says.  And going against the 'consensus' IS the definition of science.  Not denial.

Ask yourself 2 questions:

#1 Has the null hypothesis been disproven?
#2 Is the current supposition of AGW falsifiable?

If the answer to either or both is no, then I am not in denial of anything.  But many are denying science.  Because that is basic science.

Man, you do like your cherry picking.

There are a lot of ways of measuring things like "per capita income".  I used a pretty imprecise term.  You, not surprisingly, picked out the on method that works for your argument, but generally, the US doesn't rate as highly. Taking your advice and spending much less than 30 seconds with google turns up the following, which generally put the US fairly low (less so on the last one):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GNI_(nominal,_Atlas_method)_per_capita

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GNI_(PPP)_per_capita

I believe that most socialized medical systems are more successful than the US's by pretty much any metric, unless you do some sort of crazy metric like only selecting insured people.  

Uh yea. 

If someone says that they are willing to pay more to help the environment then I think it's pretty reasonable to ask what they've done.  

I'm sorry if asking if people have put their money where their mouth is makes you uncomfortable.

It doesn't make me uncomfortable.

It just seems as if there is a litmus test for you that goes beyond an individual doing what they can to lessen their energy usage. You make constant mention of solar arrays and e cars, both of which are expensive. It seems to me as if someone doesn't spend more than five figures to lessen their energy impact, you would tend to dismiss them, which is why you keep asking them if they have done as much as you.

If you guys want to look at how the US compares for the "common man" vs other countries, you should probably look at Median PPP (purchasing power) by country.  The US is #4 on the list.  It is lower in terms of actual income, but purchasing power is a better indicator because many goods and services are quite inexpensive in the US compared to other countries, and by taking the median you are seeing a better representation how most of the population vs being shifted up by the wealthiest individuals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income

And very, very few people who try to function in today's society can claim they don't contribute to global warming.  You would pretty much have to use a bicycle as your primary form of transportation, never use jets for travel, eat locally grown foods, and make use of recyclable / reusable goods at every opportunity.  There are people who strive for this, and kudos to them, but it just isn't practical or feasible for most of us.  I give props to anyone who at least tries by using electric vehicles and solar power / wind powered homes, thereby disengaging themselves from the coal powered grid as much as possible.  While I do believe in AGW, I also find it hypocritical when proponents of a "greener" lifestyle are found to have huge carbon footprints in their day to day lives.....even if they buy carbon offsets with their money, it still isn't the same as trying to lead by example.

While it's true that comparing a place with a population more on the scale of a city to the US isn't a good idea, you should primarily look at the economies of the countries who's healthcare models you're so proud of.

Norway is an excellent example of socialized medicine.  A fantastic standard of living, loads of money.  They're on the extreme end of socialist as well, people list them frequently as putting the lie to the claims that socialism destroys economic prosperity.

Petroleum export revenues, just exports, are 20% of their GDP.  That's state owned petroleum for the most part.  They have a fund they've been building that could pay most of our deficit.  They have a population of five million.

Five million people, 600+ billion in savings from their natural wealth and a resource based economy on par with the gulf oil states.

I own a dirty old Mercedes... it's totally not clean. When I bought it 4 years ago I thought... what the heck, it's a cool car and I haven't owned a car most of my life, I have some polluting to catch up to  That kind of dumb reasoning that most people do. But I also had some major losses in the stock market at the time, the stock market had crashed completely ... so I didn't want to spend too much money on a car since I had lost most of my money at the time (it took a while for the stock market to recover before I regained most of the money again...).

If you're looking for a country that's 'similar' to the US....AND has a viable Health system 'for all' there IS Australia.

It has a tiny population [comparatively] in a country the size of the US [close enough] whose infrastructure has to be taxed from a far smaller workforce...eg we have more road per car than anywhere on the planet - to maintain....yet actually DO AFFORD to have public healthcare...