The two proofs

According to climate denialists, there's no definitive proof (the famous smoking gun) that global warming, or at least a major share of it, is anthropogenic (that is, caused by humans). And to be rigorous about it, they're not entirely wrong. There are certainly plenty of indications supporting the "apocalyptic" thesis, there's broad consensus in the scientific community, and the trends in the measured quantities don't seem to follow those of natural climate cycles. But we're talking about dynamics that unfold on an enormous scale, with a whole set of variables, many of which are probably unknown to us. We don't even know whether we have the complete picture in front of us. And it's not like you can settle it once and for all with a simple lab experiment.

HOWEVER, there's no proof to the contrary either, that is, no proof that the human-caused part of the change isn't the dominant one and won't have irreversible consequences.

The craziest part is that the first of these two missing proofs gets treated as more important than the second. If the risk of global warming turns out to be a false alarm, we'll have made a bit of a mess for nothing, but we'll still be here enjoying the good life on Earth. If instead it's a real prospect, we're potentially fried, roasted, sautéed, steamed. Pick whichever metaphor you like best, but it all comes down to combustion.

I'm always in favor of doubt, of a skeptical attitude, but I'm not too keen on serving as a skewer for the cockroaches (who would probably be among the few creatures to thrive under the new conditions). So either someone comes up with definitive proof that this is one giant hoax (no speculation, suspicions, or water-cooler rumors, thanks), or I'd rather assume there's a fire to put out before the house goes up in smoke.

Drafted from Italian with Blog Translator, then revised by me.