Gankfest

I have a friend who asked me a weird question about science the other day. I'll try to explain this the best I can, as I know little about Genetics. Claim 1: People develop genetic disorders like Hunting's disease because two halves of one gene. Example, two people have sex and both have half the copy of Hunting's, but don't suffer from Hunting's; the chances of the baby having Hunting's is more likely to occur. Claim 2: Having incest sex can lead to a higher risk of genetic disorders; due to the engaging parties having almost the same genetics. Question: If Claim 1 is true, then is it possible as the population rises; the risk of genetic disorders are greater as more people are spreading around genetics by having sexual relations. Creating a Claim 2 scenario effect, but on a larger scale. Kinda like you spread out genetics so far; that it ends up spreading so many copies around, and everyone has a copy of Hunting's. Increasing the risk of Hunting's for everyone. This might sound ridiculous, and I have no idea how I would even look something like that up.I said I would ask somewhere so...

I'm a 32 year old Computer Scientist with some questions about Climate Change(Global Warming). Over the years I've read many stances and positions on Climate Change, and have lost touch with the controversy over the years. I got tired of hearing every view point, and wanted to wait until a formal scientific consensus was made until a single **** was given! Seeing that this might not happen anytime soon, and as the controversy moves on; it seems to be more of a cluster **** then originally planned. Not knowing anything about Environmental Science; makes it difficult to jump into the controversy, and understand the informal current 2014 scientific consensus! Questions: 1) What exactly is the current informal scientific consensus on Global Warming? I seriously looked this up, and it's more confusing than 10 - 15 years ago! Scientific Opinion on Climate Change. 2) Is it possible in theory, to prevent the Ice Age; by inducing man made Climate Change without killing the entire planet in the process? 3) Relating to this Article, how much does man made Green House gases being emitted into the Environment effect the natural process of Global Warming? Example, If it takes 100k years for the Ice Age to happen; then how much of the 100k years are we shaving off by Deforestation and Fossil Fuels? Is it really that big of a deal in the science community? 4) I figure with all the evidence to date, Climate Change and Global Warming is dependent on many variables; rather than just one specific thing like Green House Gases. If this is true, then it's most probable that majority of the view points are of equal validity. Meaning that each stance is either: right about certain points, wrong about other points, or unknown variables still exist. Which leaves me wondering which points should I pick and chose from which argument, if any at all...? 4a) Relating to question 4, what is hindering the science community from making a formal consensus? Is it a gap in technology, the evidence isn't there yet, the evidence is there, but making direct links is problematic, too many known/unknown factors, etc...? 5) Are we even close to an Ice Age, or an environmental disaster to where I should even care about these questions today? If there is a recent video or article at NASA, or a credible research institute answering these questions. Then please feel free to link them, as I have no problem watching/reading the work of others... I just couldn't find anything that really answered my questions. Preferably a video, as I find the Environmental Sciences to be on the dry side, but whatever is handy. Thank You!