Global warming isn't some reactionary opinion when almost every scientist in existence thinks it is happening and humans have played some role in it. There is more agreement over that then evolution, and no amount of marginalizing the messenger is going to change that.
The question becomes how much of a role we have played, which is impossible to answer without a control planet.
But it seems to me the height of arrogance and self-delusion to think we can go on as we always have. Even if you think we haven't had as much of a role, can we take that chance, when alternatives are there? We can make vehicles with higher gas mileages, we have alternative energy sources and we have alternative fuel sources all there which, if we invested in them, would not only decrease pollution but help our economy by creating new jobs and investment possibilities.
Your position seems to be that since we can't 100% prove we are causing global warming we should, contrary to majority scientific opinion, gamble with our kid's futures and live business as usual, which seems silly to me.
Even if global warming is simply a natural process, there seems to me plenty of other reasons to move away from heavily subsidizing dirty fuel sources (which is not capitalism by any stretch of the imagination). Pollution causes deaths (mainly from asthma), causes major economic damage (such as damage to metal structures and crops from acid rain, and yes, causes environmental damage. Pollution in our streams, rivers and oceans is not only sinful from a spiritual standpoint, but has destroyed many of the fish communities fishermen rely on.
In addition, coal, oil and nuclear power create far fewer jobs per kilowatt/hour then do new sources like wind, solar and biofuels, as any new technology needs many more people to help it grow. Plus, the subsidies the old, dirty fuels get has turned them into dinosaur like businesses with no need to innovate and create exciting, new economic possibilities. They know they will be propped up, so they might as well run business as usual, which simply does not work in a world community.
There is simply not a level playing field between, for example, coal and wind power, and yet, without any of the subsidies or pollution costs of coal, wind is still almost as cheap, just from a strict energy bill standpoint. If you take into account taxpayer subsidies and the financial and health costs of coal, then there is simply no way to call it cheaper then wind power.
This is simply not capitalism in any form. Also, even if we ignore global warming (which is dangerous and ostrich like), there is simply no reason not to invest in a much cleaner economy. If we do not, countries like China will, and we will find ourselves, when forced to move to a cleaner economy, reliant on China for our technologies. That does not seem a state any of us would want.
People die. It's our job. If we didn't die, we'd be doing something wrong. Some people die peacefully, some violently. Some from the hands of mother nature, be it a natural disaster like an earthquake, tsunami, typhoon, avalanche, or volcano, or from the hands of a virus. Some people even make themselves die, either by freak accident or suicide. Sometimes, a whole lot of people die all at once.
Now, I want to know, are you really questioning why you're left among the living? It's not that complicated to me; I didn't die, I get to enjoy food, drink, music, women, driving fast, looking sharp, communicating, beating up drunks (Only at work, occupation: Bouncer), smashing a wall with a hammer (Only at work, occupation: Landscaper), breathing, swimming, playing video games, walking, playing with my dog, watching football with the old man, responding to messages here, and I guess mourning people who die.
Damn, it would be a real shame if it was the end of days, because here we are, futzing around and talking about it instead of making the most of our time. I think that's proof enough that our extinction isn't emminent.
Hold nothing sacred and you'll never be dissapointed. Especially not this statement.
Geez, if you're a politician placing politics above all else, are you going to do a) the popular thing or b) the unpopular thing? Maybe if you explained how a stance against the war benefited anyone politically in any way, I'd buy your argument.