You might want to consider some alternative views, for example this article from Stanford seems reasonable in the tone of its discussion: https://www.hoover.org

You might want to consider some alternative views, for example this article from Stanford seems reasonable in the tone of its discussion: https://www.hoover.org/research/our-latest-global-warming-scare https://www.hoover.org/research/our-latest-global-warming-sc... While human effects on global climate certainly have to be considered, the idea that 200 years of industrial human civilization is enough to meaningfully alter global climate implies that if we wanted to, we could terraform other planets within just a few 100 years - which I’m sure is wrong. Or we would need to somehow make the case that this particular planet was in an unstable equilibrium, so our actions were somehow enough to knock things out of equilibrium, which I also doubt: If the earth’s climate equilibrium was so unstable, I doubt mankind would have survived this long. “Don’t sell your coat” by Harold Ambler is another well-argued discussion of some of these issues. Of course, some people would argue that you shouldn’t even consider alternative views on this topic, because it’s “climate change denial” - reminds me of the fundamentalist Muslim priests I would have to listen to growing up, telling me not to listen to the “unbelievers” because they would corrupt my mind.. :)