No, I am not aware of any people that claim we are in an ice age. (looking outside) Does not look that way around here.

As for the "article I pointed to", I pointed to the logical fallacy of your argument, based on YOUR ARTICLE.

As for "global cooling," of course it can exist, and does exist historically. It is no more than another term in any simplified linear equation of climate. It may be a weak or a strong term, with high or low uncertainty, still, the summation of the equation rules. (I'm simplifying a bit here, but likely you get it). For example, the Earth has radiative input factors, but also radiative output. Generally, that would mean outflow of watts from the lower stratosphere outwards. A global cooling factor, obviously.

You responded again, implying my evidence isn't trustworthy because climate science is biased and providing essentially false information. You did not provide any evidence of that. Your example was Al Gore, which we can both agree is an alarmist and a doofus.

Not exactly. Gore worked with Dr. James Hansen, and used Michael Mann's "hockey stick." Those are / were well published and known researchers. He did not come up with his alarmist ideas by himself. Well, maybe the idea of using the scissors lift was his. And maybe the idea of breaking the AC system in August 1988 when Hansen did his seminal report to the Senate, insuring they were all unbearably hot while the subject of the presentation was "global warming..." maybe that was Gore's work.

So Gore presented alarmist concepts but he wasn't the origin of them.

Also, you have closed with a variation of this, several times, so it deserves a reply.

(A)Besides, to elaborate on what I said, a sustainable society would be one that relies less on fossile fuels for well, fuel and energy, opting instead for renewable sources that cause the least environmental impact; governmental agencies to incentivize sustainable measures by companies & heavily monitor and punish activities that are detrimental to the environment; more robust measures to increase natural vegetation & other type of measures considered by studies to be beneficial for achieving a human-ecosystem relationship; immediate measures to mitigate climate change impacts in society (for instance, more robust catastrophe systems, overhaul in cities to be prepared for droughts, incentive for walking/biking/public transportation over personal vehicles); companies gradually changing to less wasteful products & bottles, etc. This type of stuff are the measures usually proposed to mitigate climate change, and I think regardless whether or not you think it doesn't exist you'd be willing to back them up.

Honestly, whether or not you believe or not in modern science is disregardable, as long as you support such a more "eco friendly" lifestyle

Let's just call (A) Beliefs, for a moment.

The argument now becomes "Agree with Beliefs," and you "Are a good person." I'll point out the fallacies in that.

The propagator of the argument is free to modify "Beliefs", while those subscribing to them still must adhere to the Dogma. This is pseudo-religion and has no scientific basis and no basis in any rational mode of life. Each of those sub-arguments in list (A) should be considered on it's merits or lack of. Essentially this is a power play, an attempt to gain control of people through word arguments and propaganda tactics.

Oh, and if you want to learn about eco-friendly habits, take a look at Singapore.