Okay, our ancestors survived the Siberian Traps, the Toba super volcano, and numerous climatic disasters and changes.

We have no information on which to base a conclusion that we would be better off or worse off if those events had not occurred or if a different mix of species had survived.

People on both sides of this debate have self-interest. I’m 88 and don’t know which combination of artificial and natural selection will prevail.

Just found this on Quora:

Willie Soon, the scientist (though not a climate scientist) “has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.

“The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress.”

[quora.com]

The saddest aspect of this debate is how deceptive it is. First of all, Bloom seems to know almost nothing about climate change science (he starts out by admitting he is no expert) and Soon's knowledge, though emotional and aggressive, is incomplete and piecemeal. Note that the real attack that Soon makes here is against the IPCC. The IPCC is not a group of climate scientists per see, but an intergovernmental panel, that prepares reports assessing the state of climate change as they understand it. Now, yes, they draw upon the work of climate climate experts and are generally correct in their assessments but they are not always up to the task of thoroughly understanding climate change data and sometimes it shows. Now, I have no problem with Soon pointing this out, and wanting politics divorced from true climate change science, but to equate an intergovernmental agency with climate change science is completely deceptive. This false equivalency is a Straw Dog attack. You pretend the straw dog is the real dog, easily destroy it with selective examples, and present yourself as the hero for destroying a false target.

Pay attention, if you bother to watch this, to the Q&A at the end. Soon has a clever way of deflecting and not really answering questions. Note that when asked about sea-level rise, he cannot answer it, ignores things like the Army Core of Engineers reports, and dismisses the issue as "too complex to understand." Note that when asked about the demise of coral reefs and ocean acidification he asks if we would want to outlaw free-falling rain as it is also (somewhat) acidic. This, of course, is besides the point, does not answer the question, and is just another way of admitting that for him the issue is "too complex to understand." Note that he claims that climate change models only take into account correlation with CO2 and neglect the rise in water vapor. This is blatantly false, and I am not sure how he even gets away with it except that he appears to be preaching to a choir of climate change deniers.

I agree with Willie Soon attacking bad science and some select ignorant predictions of former years but that does not negate good science. This is a version of the Motte and Bailey (MAB) attack which is a combination of bait-and-switch and equivocation. He takes the easy route when he attacks bad science, and I don't think he is always being fair, and then equivocates to the position that good climate science does not exist. False.

Consider, for example, when Willie Soon shows the record highs of earlier years he neglects to mention that it was totally expected that soon after accurate records were being kept it was absolutely unavoidable that all kinds of record highs would be set. The importance of the highs of recent years is that the highs keep getting higher and higher, not that a historical number of record highs are being set. Also, his claims of things growing larger with CO2 testing misses the point and it is deceptive. It is not CO2 that dissolves shells but H2CO3, carbonic acid. He also ignores the fact that CO2 does not always cause things to grow bigger, and when it does it is not always a good thing. In fact, it is mostly weeds that benefit from higher CO2. Also, excessive CO2 causes the leaves of many plants to get too thick and interferes with the release of oxygen exasperating the problem. Also, his flattening of the Greenhouse effect ignores the fact that the majority of CO2 absorption in the last decade has been occurring in the ocean, not in the atmosphere, which in turn increases the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, not to mention sea-level rise. He also shows some select season climate charts of North America and ignores the global effects to supposedly prove that warming is not taking place. The fact that climate change has lead to an unstable polar vortex that has allowed polar air to descend upon a part of North America proves, not disproves, climate change. Before Mr. Soon publicly attacks bad science he should first clean up his own.

To make this debate worse, Elliot Bloom freely admits he is not an expert in the field, giving Willie Soon a free hand. Sad.

Here's my stance on the subject. I feel like a large majority obsessed with "climate change" seem to think the solution is somebody else responsibility, being for the most part ( again, in their minds ) the government. I do not worry about things I cannot control, instead I focus on the little things we can do ( try to use energy as efficiently as possible ) as opposed to get "How dare you" angry about it. It's all political crap. If we all develop consciences about caring on the little things then the effect would add up to making improvement.

Global warming is an observed fact
The increase in green house gases is an observed fact.
The relationship between the two is a consensus opinion amongst the vast majority of people qualified to have an opinion.

The degree to which reducing our greenhouse emissions can mitigate the long term forecast is an open question.
Are these guys simply rare examples of dissenting opinion trying to muddy the waters for exposure and profit.

Seems likely given the source.

[sourcewatch.org]

Let me know if the video is worth nearly two hours of my time. But I'm already aware of and convinced by the consensus opinion.