Logic: Cold, calculating, utterly neccesary.

Hey, not the arguement I'd choose, but it's actually pretty neat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JnxtITOzug

The counter-arguments I've seen can be grouped into three categories.

- Global warming isn't happening.
Yes, it is. Average global temperature is increasing. The levels of temperature increase are not equal in all areas, and winters are not expect to get warmer in all areas (actually, in some areas, they're expected to get colder, as oceanic currents are disrupted). This has been proven beyond any doubt to the scientific community. Note that the scientific community does not include bloggers, oil execs, and right-wing think tanks. We're talking climatologists, meteorologists, biologists, chemists, physicists and other experts who entered the field because they were interested in the world around them. If they wanted money, they would have gone into a different field.

- Global warming isn't caused by humans.
While volcanoes and forest fires do put out a lot of CO2, they don't, in fact, contribute as much to atmospheric CO2 as humans do. And even if they did, the traditional carbons sinks (ie forests, the seas) are losing their capacity to hold CO2 (causes are deforestation and increased temperature, respectively), while humans are contributing a significant amount of CO2 that even a pristine ecosystem might not be equipped to handle.

- The consequences of responding the global warming might be worse then the consequences of global warming.

The "consequences" of responding the global warming are usually described as massive layoffs, economic downturn, huge amounts of regulation, overbearing government, and starvation due to said economic depression. While this is horrible, it does not threaten modern civilization. And while it might set us back 20-40 years, third-world countries will be the main victims.

In comparison, here's the worst-case consequences of global warming: Sea levels rise 20 feet or more. This wipes out the coastal regions of every major continent, and the rise in global temperature turns every major agricultural zone into a desert. This all happens over the span of 20-50 years, after the Antarctic sheet breaks up completely, and our albedo decreases accordingly. Billions are displaced, leading to widespread destabalization of established trade routes and resource war.

Also due to the change in climate, ecosystems are also disrupted, allowing non-native species to invade new ecosystems. Invaders include many species which are hostile to humans, such as disease-carrying insects and new brands of bacterial and other microscopic pathogens. This both decreases agricultural output, as well as expose non-resistant populations to novel pathogens, leading to massive plagues. In short, there becomes a serious possibility for the collapse of modern civilization. This is not Greenpeace and PeTA talking, this is a sizable portion of Earth's scientists talking, when asked to consider worst-case scenarios which could result from global warming.

So, which is worse? A really bad global depression? Or maybe the prospect of a nuclear exchange between several Eurasian nations as the drowning costal states invade the land-locked ones due to a catastrophic refugee crisis? How bad is another rust belt when compared to NYC, DC, Charleston, Baltimore, San Fran, Norfolk, Jackson, Providence and Miami underwater? Which would hurt the US more? The loss of several auto companies, or the displacement of our agricultural heartland into Canada?

I'll address the other objections later on, but for now, I need to go to sleep so I can continue the job search tomarrow. Sloan Kettering, oh how I lust for thee.