There is a good editorial on the problem with climate change advocacy groups. Not sure it pertains here but..
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/28/opin ... .html?_r=0
"Well, not entirely. As Andrew Revkin wrote last year about his storied career as an environmental reporter at The Times, “I saw a widening gap between what scientists had been learning about global warming and what advocates were claiming as they pushed ever harder to pass climate legislation.” The science was generally scrupulous. The boosters who claimed its authority weren’t.
Anyone who has read the 2014 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change knows that, while the modest (0.85 degrees Celsius, or about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit) warming of the Northern Hemisphere since 1880 is indisputable, as is the human influence on that warming, much else that passes as accepted fact is really a matter of probabilities. That’s especially true of the sophisticated but fallible models and simulations by which scientists attempt to peer into the climate future. To say this isn’t to deny science. It’s to acknowledge it honestly.
By now I can almost hear the heads exploding. They shouldn’t, because there’s another lesson here — this one for anyone who wants to advance the cause of good climate policy. As Revkin wisely noted, hyperbole about climate “not only didn’t fit the science at the time but could even be counterproductive if the hope was to engage a distracted public.”
It's been my opinion all along that increased carbon warms the temperature and man certainly impacts it. I would be much more inclined to agree with the Al Gore's of the world if they (1) didn't predict the end of the world every 5 years (2) attempt to downsize the lifestyles of the world while living in 10,000 square foot houses, (3) make shit loads of money working on their cause and (4) insist on the absolute accuracy of their predictive models that have to be changed every 2 years.
)
