Cormac wrote:I haven't read anything yet that convinces me that our impact is more than an acceleration of the natural cycle.
Am I wrong?
At the same time, we have some scientists arguing that we're heading for another ice age. This is something I've been hearing since the 70's, on and off. Most recently a couple of weeks back.
When people say to me that the vast majority of scientists accept global warming, I find that to some extent convincing. However, there was a time when most scientists believed in phlogiston. Scientific orthodoxy has been overturned many times.
In general, I think we should limit or negate our environmental impact as much as possible, because it is, in my view, the ethical thing to do.
The scientific consensus doesn't mean a thing. Sceptical climate scientists are virtually non-existent, because it is perfectly obvious to anyone from day one, that if you are openly sceptical, you will never get any work.
Those who are sceptical who have any sense will either keep their heads down, and draw their salaries, or migrate to different strands of science. It's a self-replicating consensus.
But global warming crap is great for climate scientists. They get a lot more money coming into the field, and they get a lot more attention.
As far as being ethical, the best thing would be to have fewer kids.
People who have a bunch of kids, and then get all conscientious make me laugh.