I did mention one specific problem, namely species extinction. At least one species (golden toad) is considered a casualty of a warming planet. Would it have happened anyway? Perhaps. Whether CO₂ released by man is the main cause is certainly in question, but it is known that CO₂ does cause a warming effect, so what is wrong with talking about ways of reducing our output of this gas? This would be in addition to not instead of debate on how to reduce our dependence on a limited resource or eliminating toxins released into the environment. It's too bad about your video. There are a lot of very different opinions here and most people are not shy about debating their position. I hope you won't be either.


In reply to this comment by rugar:
Twiddles, I simply ask that you list specific problems so that we may deal with them. Let me say in advance that "Man-made / released CO2 is making the planet hotter" is not a specific problem to which there is conclusive evidence. That is too much in debate at this point in time. I could not support any program meant to eliminate what is at this time a non-problem. If however, you were to say "Development of alternative energy sources will reduce our dependance on a limited resource" I can absolutely support that. Or I could enthusiastically support this statement: "Release of un-treated sewage is causing the introduction of synthetic estrogens into our water and food supply."

In a nutshell, simply saying "If you don't accept the truth of global climate change and that man is causing it you are part of the problem" presumes facts not in evidence. On the other hand, identifying a specific problem (ie: the hormone example above) to which there is conclusive evidence and a measurable impact that can be alleviated through a change in mankinds actions changes the argument. Instead of arguing "Is this true?", we can then argue "How do we fix this?"