I agree with much of your post. But the sad reality is, the entire debate is largely a moot point. Who is right and who is wrong here doesn't really matter when it comes to practicality. If man is mostly responsible and irrevocable and life-threatening climate change is on its way, it will require a global response, if it's indeed not too late already. In other words, game over. Full stop. Why? Because there won't be a coordinated global effort. So that's it. On the other hand, if it is mostly natural, then assuming we could do anything, it would still require global coordination. Once again, we arrive at a solution that is the only one possible while simultaneously being impossible to arrive at. It's a fun debate -- who's right/who's wrong/who's responsible/who's loony. But that's all it is. Until and unless disaster is raining down upon the Earth, all this thing is is one big giant argument that makes people mad at each other...and maybe a learning experience. Hopefully, in the end, we will in fact all learn something.