As somebody has brought nasa up lets also remember that three things nasa openly admit they are only just beginning to get a basic understanding of and are decades of research away from being able to grasp sufficiently their interaction with the rest of the ecosystem to outline and predict their effects are
Clouds, the solar cycles and outputs and the deepsea flows and currents
All of which are MAJOR climate drivers and all of which NASA a very pro AGW organisation (because its giving thema huge chunk of their funding) admits they have a very basic understanding of because of only recently (in data terms) had the ability to watch and monitor them in detail
So to put it into perspective niether the pro nor anti AGW crowd "knows" what is happening, NASA doesnt know what is happening, but everyone is wildly speculating and all with their own bias and justification much of which (on both sides) is driven by money
What we DO know however is that ice melts and raises water levels. We "could" be speeding this process up and most probably are to some extent, but how much impact we are having isnt known by EITHER side as it is a natural and somewhat sporadic and non linear process naturally
We also know that at least one other large glacier claimed to be melting because of AGW actually turned out to be melting because of natural erosion of the sea bet it was sitting on which should surely give at least some pause for breath
Although I can understand some of the frantic panic of the pro AGW side of the arguement they are also guilty of the things they accuse the anti AGW side of like selectively seeing what suits them as the main push behind the pro agw lobby is politically based rather than scientific but the politicians hold the academic purse strings which immediate sets a tone to academic stance irrespective of the actual facts on a topic
It "may" turn out that in 100 years by which time very little of a catastrophic nature will have happened btw we find out that AGW has noticeably sped up the natural pattern of global warming, or merely that we "might" have done that as natural spikes and troughs in such things can last centuries by themselves. Hell, we could find we are having a mini ice age in a hundred years too such is our current ability to model the climate
But we ARE already making improvements, we ARE already producing greener versions of our technologies, we ARE already being taxed to more than sufficient amounts IF governments didnt waste that money on expenses and flying themselves around the world every 5 minutes or funding puff piece biased research
We SHOULD tackle pollution and waste not because of doom and gloom nonsense but because it makes sense, And we are doing so.
What we shouldnt do though is to get caught up in (as yet) unproven and unproveable hysteria and as a knee jerk reaction throw the worlds better economies into decline by excessive and unjustified panic measures to raise more tax to keep feeding the ever growing self serving pro agw academic machine
We "could" have stopped world hunger, provided fresh water, healthcare and education for the entire planet for a lot less than we have already spent on not trying to counteract global warming, but PURELY on trying to prove its man made and still had billions left over according to WHO figures
Surely those are far more worthwhile uses for money? Surely dealing with a known and actual problem that we CAN fix right now is better than spending that money on academic navel gazing not into whether the planet is or has been till recently "warming" but purely into what if any percentage of that is man made?
So far the examination of possible AGW portions to any warming that might be occuring has killed quite literally millions of people and continues to do so by diverting money to something that really needs to wait for nasa to get a better understanding of the major climate drivers. Because right now they arent sure if a rise in temperature would cause more cloud cover which in turn would self regulate or not. They claim they need a decade or more of extra research
Meanwhile millions die on a monthly basis because of a lack of food, fresh water and healthcare.......
I am not saying we should completely ignore the possibility of AGW, but simply that we should maybe shift focus. Sort out pollution, greener energy sources, more sustainable living because they make sense and not have an almost religious style zealotry and paranoid draconian approach trying to enforce a regime when its own science is still incomplete
Because I wouldnt like to live in a world where in 50 years we find out that billions of people have been forced into or to remain in abject poverty and restrictive lives whilst the politicians, the rich and of course the academics wer e living the life of riley only to hear that mans contribution to warming wasnt as much as feared and that all that suffering was pre emptive which IS as much as the pro AGW lobby will disagree with it still a 50/50 chance