I watch from the sidelines and make my own observations and evaluations.
1. Yes, a documented rise in average global temp (albeit very small).
2. Yes, a documented increase in carbon-based output from mechanical processes over the last 150 years.
3. Yes, global variations in temps, highs and lows, over unrecorded history, but shown by geological samples.
Is (1) directly caused by (2)? Maybe. Or maybe it is just a coincidental overlap with normal historic cycles.
While carbon output from modern fossil fuels is calcuable, the use of wood, leaves, twigs, and dried dung (a common fuel in the 3rd world) for heating use before the industrial revolution is a little harder to estimate.
For that matter, a significant portion (perhaps the majority portion) of the "dirty-burning" in China and India (the two largest contributing nations for carbon output) is due to "low-tech" burning.
It makes a carbon comparison with pre-industrial times to modern is almost impossible.
What bothers me is that the focus is almost solely on the "evils" of modern technology, while, ironically, simpler means are often far dirtier.
Further, the "solution" seems to fall into two categories:
1. Frequently touted "alternative energy," usually by politicians or "activists" who have very little education or expertise in the laws of thermodynamics or chemistry, or
2. Taxation, for carbon use.
Alternate energy sources have their place. I think wind is economically viable, while large-scale solar is not (it only works when the sun is up; the wind blows day or night in many locales). The much-trumpeted bio-jetfuels are enjoying success not so much because they are cheap to make (they aren't; about 3-4 times the cost of regular fuel), but rather, big cities that are promoting them (LAX now, SJC soon) are running out of landfill space for garbage. By subsidizing the syn-fuel refineries, it reduces their trash costs....and they get to boast of "saving the environment."
I think wave-power will soon become a significant source; the first large-scale facilities are being built.
But riddle me this, Batman: do people ever ask what kind of polluting processes were required to build the solar cells? If you trade your gas-guzzler in for a Prius, did it go away? Or are there TWO cars now, where there was once one? How much carbon did it take to make that electric car?
How does taxing carbon make it go away?
If there was a global treaty on carbon, and lightning caused a massive forest fire, who pays the fine? That country? Mother Nature? The country that the air-mass formed in?
In my middle-age, I've become very cynical about almost everything. But I have noticed this: government, the media, and popular entertainment are constantly hawking some new thing that you must have. Phone, computer, car, house, credit card, prescription drugs....you name it.
"Needs" seem to be created, then reinforced by a message Blitzkrieg from the above.
And it makes me wonder if capitalism isn't the biggest ponzi-scheme ever, except now, it seems more overt that government is working in concert with industry.
I'm old enough to remember when "The Next Ice Age" was being forecast by the experts, so I take "expert" testimony with a grain of salt.
And I wonder: could it be that the rise in temperature is due to the fact that there have never been 7.5 Billion people on the planet before?
What if the real cause was "Well, there's just too many people.....we need to cull the herd." Where do we make those cuts?
Finally, what would YOU be willing to give up? Your Job? Home? Mobility (car)? iphone? (The industrial processes therein are quite bad for the environment; mining for critical semiconductor elements for screens technology happens in the poorest countries in the world).
Would you be willing to go back to living in a home with a kitchen stove to heat the entire house, a horse to ride to work, and your circle of experience limited to about 3 miles from your home?
....knowing that people in other countries were NOT doing so?