I don't know enough about what laws are or are not "on the books" or are or are not being enforced to comment.  I do know enough about the EU and UN NOT to want them EU, or any other  international groups controlling these laws.   And yes, I also agree that these issues get hijacked by vested interests.   Like everything else in the world, it is a mess.

Now that the cat is out of the bag, and the scheme is revealed for the fraud that it is, politicians and those crackpot scientists should just shut their pie holes.  The new director of the fraudulent CRU is just as big a fraud as the guy who stepped down, and is scrambling to provide cover for his institution, and more importantly to him, his funding.

On the other hand, as Dims pointed out so well, there are cyclical planetary cycles of warming and cooling.  Just off the coast of England are MANY villages that have been reclaimed by the sea.  There is a wealth of fossils of animals and trees in the Artic and Antartic showing they were not always ice regions.  Even in glaciers in the Swiss Alps, preserved remains of ancient people have been found.

So, let's be sensible.  Reduce carbon emissions in an economically viable way – don't impose  immediate, global laws that will decimate the economies of companies and countries.  Move to alternative energies, but with care lest they prove worse than what we already use.  We're far from an ideal planet, far from a perfect mankind.  The UN and EU (who are very much in support of "Climate Change" laws) are full of corrupt, arrogant, money-grabbing, nepotistic leaders.  Even though changes are obviously needed, putting any control in either of their hands would be very dangerous and would bound to have a far-reaching, negative impact.

The current crop of scientists that are looking at recent history are only looking at a miniscule fraction of the Earth's history, and when they compare today's climate with the climate a hundred years ago or a thousand years ago, it is a specious comparison, given the paleoclimatic conditions that are currently in the literature.  How do they compare today's temps with the temps 200 years ago, when recording methods were sketchy at best?

The presumption that today's climate is the "correct" one is not even science, and is a laughable concept, worthy only of derisive laughter.  Or a Nobel Peace Prize, apparently.

Prove that global warming is not significantly based on man's activities?  Sure.  Here are the readily available facts: 1) we are in an interglacial period (and overdue for its end); 2) in the last interglacial period, CO2 levels were significantly higher than they are now, and sea levels were 15 – 18 FEET above present levels (about 120K years ago) and about 70 feet below current levels during the last ice age 20K years ago (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/); 3) both 20K and 120K years ago, man was not a factor at all in the climate change, i.e. no industries, no powerplants, no SUVs.

Currently, the IPCC is predicting disaster from a few centimeters of sea level rise.

Secondly, if CO2 is going to be considered a pollutant in any concentrations above whatever the the politician scientists consider "normal", then it is reasonable to consider oxygen a pollutant as well, as in higher concentrations than what is considered normal, it is toxic.  Should we now cut down trees or poison oceanic blue green algae to control, or better, maintain the levels of oxygen currently found in the atmosphere?