> the climate isn't fully understood I give you this one. There is no absolute _proof_, we only have scientific consensus of the overwhelming majority. Granted

> the climate isn't fully understood I give you this one. There is no absolute _proof_, we only have scientific consensus of the overwhelming majority. Granted, they all can be wrong, thats the good thing about science. Having said that, just out of curiosity watching you discuss: Would you agree that _just in case_ all these dudes are roughly right, we all should make at least good faith attempts to stop whatever we're doing currently or change it so that it doesn't make the situation worse? Best case, all the scientists were wrong and we made the world a cleaner place with less pollution and sustainable tech instead of using up limited resources wherever possible. Worst case: they were not only right and even underestimated the pace (happened multiple times already), but we took measures just in time and can solve the problems just-in-time. I mean, we could expand the problem easily to not only include warming and its effects, we do have straight pollution problems right in front of us. Toxic substances sifting into nature, rivers dying, agricultural wastes poisoning the seas, piles of garbage in poorer countries where new smallpox variants can emerge, hostile bacterias that are immune to the last antibiotics we have against superimmune things, ... . I think even if the whole global warming story would be some super world conspiracy or mathematical error at the end, many measures to reduce that thing would also help against very obvious problems we also have (or start to have).