Global warming is actually a fairly interesting question. On one hand, the earth does cycle through warm and cold phases, we can tell that from studying evidence from both the known ice ages and warm eras. There are a significant number of scientists who believe this is what's going on, and that things are getting a bit warmer due to natural causes. On the other hand, there is a lot of evidence behind the hypothesis that high amounts of pollution do cause this sort of problem, including analysis of other atmospheres on planets in our solar system; Venus is a veritable hell, with the highest component being carbon dioxide. It's very difficult to argue that these things are harmless to human life; it doesn't take a 95% CO2 composition to warm things up enough to cause serious problems for humans living or growing food.
My feeling (this is not my field) is that whether or not pollution is causing global warming, it's better to pollute less, and to be aware of my plastic and chemical wastes as well as my carbon footprint. So I do what I can; the hippy laundry detergent does fine for me, I pay a tiny bit extra to buy power from wind, solar and biomass generation, and my commute is short (and bikeable, weather allowing). It may be that no amount of this will help, if pollution isn't the cause, but the world is heating up according to the observations we have. The number of private jets is very small, the number of dirty factories in China, ships burning low quality diesel, and inefficient cars everywhere is very, very high. The garbage patch out in the Pacific is not getting smaller, and all that plastic is still out there. This really isn't about class or economics, it's that the majority of people cause the majority of the pollution, and if people don't know there's a problem it'll never be fixed in time... though I agree the approach taken so far has been annoyingly preachy. I think Al Gore and the Hollywood mouthpieces only know how to preach and pose, so they're doing what they do.
At the end of the day, the song was right, it's just a space between ice ages. Science doesn't argue, science proves and science hypothesizes. Farces, preaching, conspiracy theories and happy thoughts don't address the issues, only how people think about them. My suggestion, if I can make one, is to take a look at the data and what the nerdy guys in lab coats, who don't have jets or houseboats or beauty and social lives are saying. Science is not a politician's job, you can't expect them to be good at it. Look for the professional geeks out there and see what they say, and make your mind up from that.
In direct answer: Not a farce, but not fully understood.
Source(s):