Having read the articles, I don't find myself being persuaded against the consensus. I think Andre has pointed out the obvious changes in the past few centuries and it is unbdoubtedly changes that have been caused by man. Deforestation leads to the formation of deserts, excessive cars in the cities leads to smog, these are obvious aspects of ecological and environmental change. The bigger picture is where I am not an expert and will never claim to be, but it all seems to point to the human population explosion and massive consumption of energy (oil and coal) as being the most probable causes of change. Now this is not set in stone or absolute, but why would you play a lottery with the future of your children, when it is just common sense to lead a cleaner more positive life. Who wants to live in the smog drenched rat race cities? For financial reasons most don't have a choice, so why not at least have clean cities, breathable air etc. It just seems incredibly selfish to resist change when there are obvious harmful affects on the quality of life. Nobody is arguing Lyle's ridiculous argument of living in primitive societies again, but to just clean up our act. Actions do have consequences and yes you do have responsibilities.