I don’t care, because there’s nothing I can do about it. It also applies to all large-scale problems, like national elections.
I do understand, that that point of view creates ‘tragedy of commons’, but there’s no way I can force millions of people to do my bidding on this or that.
I also do not make interventions to my lifestyle, since I expect AGW effects to be dominated by socio-economic changes in the nearest half a century.
I’d think ‘ethical’ in review board has noting to do with ethics. It’s more of PR-vary review board. Limiting science to status-quo-bordering questions doesn’t seem most efficient, but a reasonable safety precaution. However, typical view of the board might be skewed from real estimates of safety. For example, genetic modification of humans is probably minimally disruptive biological research (compared, to, say, biological weapons), though it is considered controversial.