(1) I don't have an opinion on whether or not global warming is happening. I'm not a scientist, so I don't know the facts. I'm fairly sure that the climate is changing, because from what I know of history and geology etc it has always changed. (This winter has been very cold, but speaking to my 86 year old grandmother this weekend, she remembers much colder ones and also much warmer ones back in the day.) I expect the climate will always change. Maybe one day we'll get another ice age again and there will be polar bears in central London.
(2) I expect humans do have some influence on climate change, along with animals. Everything influences everything, action and reaction are equal and opposite, it's what Newton says, it's what the chaos theory says, it's SCIENCE. It must be true. Humans have always influenced the climate.
(3) Even if it's true that humans are a significant cause of climate change (like maybe bigger than 50 or 100 years ago) it might not be true that the climate change caused by humans is bad. (Why does nobody ever make this point?) Maybe we're making the climate better than how it would have been without us. Think about it - how should the world's climate be ideally? What is the best possible climate for the world? Don't say the one we would get without humans, because that might be an ice age or some shit. I'd like it if we could change Britain's climate and make it a bit warmer and for there to be more sunshine. I think they should try to make it rain more on deserts too and not have floods in places like Bangladesh. Other people will have different views maybe. I don't know why I've not heard this be debated.
(4) Even if it's true that we're making the climate worse, that still doesn't mean that we should stop changing the climate. It might be the case that the cost of stopping changing the climate is much much higher than the cost of changing it. We'd need to do a sort of balancing act to weigh up which is worse: political decisions would need to be made, which scientists and climatologists can't make alone. If there is an economic cost to reducing carbon which makes the world poorer (and, for example, means more African women die in childbirth than need to) then that needs to be considered. I don't hear this being debated much either.
I just hear (1) and (2) being debated. It just seems to be half of the debate to me. (1_ The climate is changing? Big deal. (2) Humans are a cause of it? Big f*cking deal. You also need to show me (3) that the climate change caused by humans is bad. And (4) that less harm would be caused by altering our behaviour than not altering it.