Doubt is free, everyone has their share or should, or they are what might be called gullible. Certainty is a rare commodity, there are merchants for that.
The book Merchants of Doubt sells the certainty that there should be no doubt. Anyone that points out that doubt exists, is an evil merchant trying to part you from common wisdom.
One of the greatest examples of gullibility is the video by Penn and Teller call Di-Hydrogen Monoxide (DHM). DHM,is two hydrogen molecules and one oxygen, H2O or water. P&T slipped a young woman into an environmentalists get together with a fake petition to ban water, DHM. The young woman listed plenty of facts about water, only giving it an evil twist. Water is a solvent, water causes profuse sweating, water causes death etc. The gullible environmentalists largely signed the petition without question. They obviously had no clue what Di-Hydrogen Monoxide was, it just sounded bad, so it should be banned. They lacked doubt, so the bought the certainty that something that sounded bad was.
This was just a fun skit by P&T to show how gullible the average attendee of an environmentalist rally happens to have been, possibly still may be. If you happen to be an environmentalists, you "Know" that you are not that gullible.
If I told you that due to one thing, cancer deaths have increased 500 times, not being gullible, you would know that is bad. That one thing exists, it is called prosperity. Because of man's prosperity, he has free time. Man doesn't have to spend most of his life trying to live. He can muse on what causes this or that. Learn things about this and that to make better this and thats. Very few people die from cancer when they are dying from starvation, exposure, diseases wild animal attacks, wild human attacks or accidents. You had to be prosperous to live long enough to die of cancer. You wouldn't ban prosperity to fight cancer would you? Opps!
Global warming is a lot like cancer. Because man has become prosperous, he can worry about what he is doing to the climate. Nothing at all wrong with that. It is good to not crap where you live, unless of course you sanitarily deal with your crap. Man used to just dump his crap in the streets, once he progressed to having streets, that is. Then he progressed to dumping his crap in the rivers and oceans because there was too much crap in the streets. Back then, the prosperity to have streets caused death by crap. Dumping in the rivers cause other things and people to die by crap. Man's crap caused death. So did man ban crapping? No, he developed better ways to deal with crap, progress allowed by prosperity, lead to better ways of dealing with crap.
Since you are an intelligent environmentalist, you know that crap is dangerous. So do you find better ways to deal with crap? Maybe you think it is better to have other people deal with the crap? Maybe you think that we should just ban crap? Crap is bad, let's ban crap.
Or do you consider dealing with our crap? You love the planet and mother nature, so we either need to deal with our crap or ban it. Sometimes dealing with crap means you have to live with the crap until you figure out how to deal with the crap. What may sound like a great way to deal with crap, like dumping your crap in the streets, may work for a while, but sooner or later, that crap will get you. You need to find a better way to deal with crap. The best way to deal with the crap is at the source of the crap. Wars have fallen a little out of favor, so that option is limited. It is a problem solver though.
As an environmentalist, you may want to be a humanitarian also. You you want to save the planet and as many crappers as possible. In order to crap, the crappers need food and food requires land to be grown upon. Growing food to feed billions can be done by hand and organically. It is a little bit easier to use machinery, fertilizers and pesticides, but it can be done without any of those, because there is plenty of crap for fertilizer and plenty of crappers to spread the crap around. Bugs would be a bit of a problem, but with enough land, organic bug repellants can help.
All we need is enough land and we can feed all the crappers. An acre per crapper should be more than enough. So only about 7 to 10 billion acres will be needed to feed all the healthy, longer living crappers which will eventually die of some kind of cancer or other crap, the cause of which will be banned later.
Since there are about 250 acres per kilometer squared, it would only take about 40 million kilometers squared. The surface area of the Earth is 510 million kilometers squared, so about 8 percent of the surface of the Earth is all we need. Right now man is using about 48 million kilometers square as agricultural land, that includes pastures and other non-Earth friendly low food production uses. In 1950 there were about 2.5 billion crappers. Now there is about 7 billion crappers. Someone not intelligent enough to be a scientist might think the increase in the acreage of crapper food production might have contributed to global warming. That would be foolish. Global warming is caused by CO2 produced by fossil fuel use. Just because there is a correlation between land use by humans and warming, does not mean that is THE cause of global warming. THE cause is CO2 mainly from coal which is the root of all fossil fuel evil because it requires turning beautiful mountains into eyesores, not beautiful forests into beautiful farm lands.
Now, just because coal is not as dirty as it was before 1950, doesn't mean it is clean. Coal can never be clean and it still will destroy all of the beautiful mountains and has been proven to cause the death of crappers. Since progress in dealing with our crap halted sometime around 1950, the only things that can help are things that were not around in the 1950s. Well, things that were not around in the 1950s and produced in some other crapper's back yard.
Humm? Seems like this post is full of crap. Luckily, the environmentalists have their crap together so only the things that caused the prosperity and the crap that came with it,are to blame. After all, if it wasn't for prosperity, there would be no cancer.