Interesting discussion, so, here’s my $0.02. Several clarifying points - weather is not climate, weather is what you experience, climate is an abstract, a derived average of a number of years of weather. You may be freezing or sweating, it is irrelevant to whether the climate is actually changing.
What seems (IMHO) to be irrefutable is that human activity has changed the proportions of CO2 in the atmosphere. The years of measurement up on the top of Mona Loa (the highest volcano in Hawaii) establishes the current proportions. Global CO2 is apparently very hard to measure, though the methods are easy. A team of horses passing by would alter the measurements, throwing off all measurements made prior to ~1960 or so. Mona Loa sticks up into the trade winds, with thousands of miles of atmospheric mixing across the Pacific Ocean to occur before the measurements are made. The upward trends cannot be argued with. The lower limits (pre- Industrial Revolution) are derived from air entrained in ice from deep cores extracted from Greenland. Again, one can argue with them but they seem based on pretty good science. Yeah, I’ve repeatedly heard the story about a volcano spewing more than all humanity, haven’t seen a compelling argument supporting it though.
Then there is the question about whether the change in CO2 is actually causing the change in climate. Lots of argument on all sides, seems like the consensus is that it is changing - melting glaciers, plants and animals moving up in elevation. Not conclusive, but lots of evidence. In my opinion (worth a lot to me, maybe not so much to others), we likely should start doing something to reduce our use of hydrocarbons, especially those derived from plants more than a million years old.
Like many in this thread have already said - population is the real problem. (Is there anyone out there that denies that human population growth is out of hand?) It is coal and oil that has allowed our population to go crazy - without it, even with all the miracle sanitation and medicine advances, our population wouldn’t exceed 3-4 billion - likely less. Unless we are unlike every other animal population, if we don’t curb it, something will cause it to crash - with unfortunate consequences for those going through the crunch. (Pick your consequence, war, famine or pestilence, none seem like much fun to me.) So, can we rely on rational actions to curb our consumption? If everyone thought like Mobile Bob, we might all be able to reason with them. Unfortunately, most humans tend to do the cheapest and easiest thing, meaning we may need some kind of regulation. Those living in a democracy can all demand that the regulation be transparent, and based on some kind of logic so that everyone can see where the $ goes, and how. It would set a good example, but, as always, is subject to politics, meaning someone is going to get screwed. So, should we not try? Don’t have the answer, just asking the question.
Ray