>>>>Unrelated question: You avoid GMO foods, right?
>>>
>>>Well....I try to. Not always as easy as it should be.
>>
>>Understood. Our food is so factory-made it gets hard to be careful.
>>
>>One other unrelated question: What do you think of the climate deniers who ignore scientific consensus?
>
>What consensus? The 97%?. I read an article that said the 97% was of those who responded to a poll. They didn't say how many didn't respond...

As you know, the whole thing is a media and political construct.
The scientific method depends on being able to replicate results on falsifiable theories - neither of those is true for climate.
Further, "scientific method" must be open to alternate theories - allowing only "one truth" is more like a religion than science.
The consensus was "the earth is flat" at one time.
The consensus was "the earth is the center of the heavens" for a long time.
Consensus is a pretty strange concept to apply to science.

As a computer programmer, I just find that calling a computer model with unknown unknowns as "science" is just loony tunes anyhow.
As I understand it, some of these models don't include the variability of solar output, nor do they model the changes in cosmic radiation affecting cloud cover.
Even the basic assumption that Earth's climate is stable - we all know that is not true.

Heck, even a computer model without unknown unknowns but attempting to model a giant system with many many inputs - just too many assumptions to believe it to be a source of "truth"

None of that means to ignore the whole thing.
But it does mean we are very far from being able to say the sky is falling.