Ice caps are melting, holes in the ozone layer are increasing, sea temperatures are rising, weather patterns becoming amplified, and none of it near airports.
I don't think there is now any dispute that we have global warming and that there are going to be fairly serious consequences as a result. The argument is about the cause, whether global warming is caused by man or mainly by other factors - sunspots, volcanoes, etc. - such as have been offered as an explanation here.
If it's not man made, all we can do is accept whatever providence has in store for us and go about our lives. But if it is man made, then we have a duty to act, painful as that process might be.
There are two camps taking different position about whether man is responsible. The first camp led to the Kyoto protocol which was signed, I believe, by all but two of the countries in the west and by several from east europe and asia. That camp believes the scientific evidence is pretty much beyond controversy and trusts the proof that their scientists have delivered. The second camp says we don't have enough evidence, that the jury is out, that there might be other causes that would render any painful action we take futile and before we take any painful medicine, we need more proof.
We've seen this two camp scenario before. Big tobacco refuted the apparent incontrovertible causal link between smoking and cancer for the same reasons that many are denying man's impact on global warming. Because it would hit their pockets. When they did finally admit it, it was too late for millions who already had cancer or other tobacco related illnesses.
So, I believe we have to look at those dissenting voices in the global warming argument and try to assess whether they're coming from the same place that big tobacco was. I'm pretty much satisfied that many of the pressure groups set up to argue against man taking action to reduce his impact on the environment have been established by oil, gas and power companies who have a vested interest in retaining the status quo because to do otherwise will hit there profits hard.
Even Herman Daly, World Bank economist and as hardened a capitalist as one can find, has gone on record as saying we're treating the planet as if it were a business in liquidation. If he's persuaded, along with the great majority of political and authoritative scientific expertise in the west, then I'm persuaded because this is one issue about which we dare not be wrong.