Is Global Warming a Hoax?

[MadMojoMonkey]

I've mostly stayed out of the climate change debate, so I admit that I'm somewhat un-educated on the topic. But maybe someone in this thread can help clear up some nagging questions I have.

That's how I first approached this thread, too.

What I've learned:
The biggest problem is the cost-benefit analysis of taking action is a total unknown.

Aren't glaciers supposed to melt?

As I was taught in Ethics class, "supposed to" is a moral assertion.
I'm not sure what you're asking, unless you're stipulating that glaciers do as the glaciers' god(s) demand(s).


Can you restate the question?

Wasn't most of the world covered in miles-thick ice at one point in time? All that ice melted without any help from coal power plants or car exhaust.

Yes.

Why is it that we've now decided the earth has the 'perfect amount' of ice on it, and suddenly we have to scramble to stop any more melting.

I don't think any credible person is citing the amount of ice as a part of their case.

It kinda goes like this: The world changes climate all by itself. It usually does so mind-blowingly slowly. Since the rise of human civilization, the climate of the Earth has been changing at a not so slow rate.
The data is astoundingly clear that the climate is changing, and warming. It is clear that the timing coincides with people's presence.

It seems not-stupid to correlate those facts, but it is an assumption. This is a talking point of CC deniers.

What is not at all clear is what portion of the warming is due to human impact and what amount was going to happen anyway in the Earth's natural climate evolution?
This matters a huge deal, because if humans are barely affecting it, then nothing to really worry about, and inexpensive, non-intrusive changes fix our impact. If it's basically all us, or worse, more than us (e.g. if the Earth would have been cooling if not for our impact), then we have a serious problem to deal with, which will probably require intrusive changes to Earth culture.