I find that labels are a means of distorting reality. I have never joined a political party, and my views are simply that the greatest evils in the present day USA are those committed by political partisans in the name of a political agenda.
Republican or Democrat, Liberal or Conservative, Scientific or Anti-Science, Religious or Anti-Religious - all labels without any real meaning. Every human being is unique, and as eccentric as a pet raccoon. Applying labels to others is - worst of all - a means of self-deception.
Let me mention some things that I do believe:
There is only one choice remaining in today's overpopulated world, where the simple presence of 7.3 billion human beings is the most serious and deadly "extinction level event" recorded in the fossil record of the planet. You can choose to knowingly become an advocate for and supporter of Humanity,
or you can choose to knowingly become an advocate for and supporter of "Mother Earth", Gaia, Nature, Scientific facts, Objective Reality, etc. (All labels that one applies to deliberately deceive one's self and other people.)
The "or" in the paragraph above is an "exclusive or". There once was an entire spectrum of valid positions in between these two extreme
political viewpoints. The presence of the (at least) 6.3 billion overshoot human population has reduced and simplified things tremendously. The only choice remaining is quite simple, and there are only two rational and self-consistent and logical political positions remaining, and I told you what those were. If you think I am wrong about that, you are deceiving yourself.
"Climate Change" is an entirely meaningless label. Climate changes all the time, all over the globe, and the only place one finds climate stability is in obscure and exceptional environments such as deep underground caves. The dominant natural climate trend is one of Warming, as we withdraw from the last Glacial period, and approach the peak inter-glacial temperature commonly labeled the "Climatic Optimum". The fossil record is explicit about that as well - it is that time when the peak amount of animal and plant biomass is present on the Earth's surface, before the long slide into the next glacial period begins. The lowest temperature extreme between inter-glacials is that time in the climate cycle where the living biomass is at a minimal value.
===> In actuality, "Mother Nature" does not give a rodent's behind whether that biomass consists of giant ferns, ocean plankton, countless species of dinosaurs, humans and their animal/plant food species, or ants. Ants may be the most successful species at this moment in time, as there are thousands of them for every human. Or perhaps that most successful species is a soil nematode or some form of deep undersea life we know nothing about, and have not yet labelled. Ultimately, whatever species that would be changes continuously and does not matter - unless you believe as I do that humans are different and unique and the most successful species yet produced by the planet, in that eyeblink of geological time when life existed, between two really really long periods of planetary sterility.
AGW is another ultimately meaningless term - because it truly does not matter whether mankind is capable of, or is in fact, changing climate, because there are so many people present at this time and in this place, that we cannot change what is happening. We can make extreme and significant lifestyle changes, and if it turns out that I am wrong and mankind is changing the climate, the absolute best thing that we can bring about is a momentary slowing in the rate of change, or a moderation of the peak temperature of the Climatic Optimum. This is ultimately meaningless and does not change the fate of humans or any other species - or all collective species on Earth. Don't waste more than a few seconds of thought on AGW, we can't make any changes that matter, our fate is already known.
The survivors of the next Glacial when it ebbs might be considered "humans" or not - we went into the last Glacial with several hominid species in contention, and modern humans emerged.
Wikipedia:
According to the Recent African Ancestry theory, modern humans evolved in Africa possibly from Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis or Homo antecessor and migrated out of the continent some 50,000 to 100,000 years ago, replacing local populations of Homo erectus, Homo denisova, Homo floresiensis and Homo neanderthalensis.
Archaic Homo sapiens, the forerunner of anatomically modern humans, evolved between 400,000 and 250,000 years ago. Recent DNA evidence suggests that several haplotypes of Neanderthal origin are present among all non-African populations, and Neanderthals and other hominids, such as Denisova hominin may have contributed up to 6% of their genome to present-day humans, suggestive of a limited inter-breeding between these species. Anatomically modern humans evolved from archaic Homo sapiens in the Middle Paleolithic, about 200,000 years ago. The transition to behavioral modernity with the development of symbolic culture, language, and specialized lithic technology happened around 50,000 years ago according to many anthropologists although some suggest a gradual change in behavior over a longer time span.
There is only ONE question remaining of any interest to me - or anybody else who has thought the matter through:
===> Are humans successful enough to spread beyond the confines of a single planet and in habit other places in our Solar System, before the entirely natural climate cycle cashes in our chips, and another species emerges from the next Glacial, and tries again to escape the planet, before the cycle completes yet again?
Call me a wild optimist, because I believe in today's Humanity. We can escape our fate, all it takes is the desire to do so.
So
CHOOSE ALREADY from the only two positions that remain. Choose to be an advocate of humans and trashing the planet, or to be an advocate of the planet, by promoting the extinction of our species.
===> Or deceive yourself with the belief that other meaningful choices exist.