This is probably a bit overboard, however...
I still find it the height of arrogance that some scientists, which say the earth is 4+ billion years old, say that we've been on the planet for 10,000 years, also says we've managed to completely hose the environment in around 100 years.
We're not that blamed powerful, and our planet isn't that fragile. CO2 is not a pollutant, it is plant food. Historically, CO2 rises after the temperature does, not before.
Furthermore, why look at CO2, which is something like .3 percent of the greenhouse effect, why not look at water vapor, which is above 80%? Why not look at the direct output of heat, air conditioners, car engines, simply anything mechanical and most things biological? Why not look at the heat radiated from the asphalt and concrete absorbed from sunlight? Why completely disregard the Sun. Just about every article I read about solar flares, Maunder minimum, etc, has a comment from another scientist that says the Sun doesn't have that kind of power over our climate.
What?!?! A giant nuclear inferno that causes the temp to rise to 100*F during the day and drop to 70*F when we can't see it, a giant ball of flaming hydrogen that causes cancer, sunburn, powers solar devices by light alone, feeds plant life, this can't possible be the cause for our temperature increase? The same scientists have been commenting on how active the sun has been over the last ten years, but completely disregard any impact it may have on us.
This is not science. Science is nothing to do with consensus. The consensus a few hundred years ago was the Earth was flat. Anyone that said otherwise was a heretic and put to death. Science is about proven, reproducible fact. Seems they've changed the definition since I went to school.
