I seldom enter these debates because no distinction is ever made whether a person is arguing against global warming or anthropogenic global warming. There's an important distinction between the two. Global warming is a reality. Even though the rate of increase has slowed over the last decade, the earth is measurably getting warmer. You can't just take land surface temperatures into consideration, but ocean temperatures have increased rapidly during the same decade that the warming has slowed. Measuring rising temperatures can't really be argued. Maybe that all reverses itself. Who knows? But you can't deny the earth is heating up. A cold winter in Iowa doesn't change that.
Now...are the causes of rising temperatures anthropogenic in nature? An overwhelming number of scientist believe that it can be directly linked to man's activity. I personally believe the juries out because of the complex nature of our climate system. I don't think we fully understand it yet. But it's obvious to me that once again the side you fall on and argue is linked not to a careful evaluation of the information available, but by your already held political beliefs. If absolute ideological thinking wasn't guiding your beliefs we wouldn't see this issue fall along party lines. Both conservatives and liberals are thinking with their politics instead of a fair evaluation of the available information. Given the possible consequences of being wrong, not proceeding cautiously on the issue is frightening.
If ever there was an issue you need to unshackle yourself from your political beliefs, this is one of them. Don't research the issue with confirmation bias, look at the information objectively. I say that knowing that most people are incapable of doing so. That's sad to me. It's why I hate politics.
For those of you who have argued that this is just a bunch of scientist who are protecting funding sources, that is the most patently absurd argument I've ever heard. First off, the notion that the majority of scientist who represent hundreds of nations, interests, areas of specialization (with most getting no direct earmarked climate study monies), and are ego driven human beings, to think they could somehow come together in a mass conspiracy to keep the money flowing...well...like I said, absurd.
But let's humor that argument. Do you really believe that the deniers aren't just as prone to follow the money? Read this article linked below. One of the few scientific deniers received over a million dollars from the oil industry. Both sides are guilty of being influenced. That's why, again, you have to remove preconceived ideology from your influence on this issue.
My personal opinion? I believe the earth is in a period of warming. The majority of scientist believe that it can be attributed to man's activity. I have to take that seriously even though I'm not totally convinced that we posseess a total understanding of our climate system. So I hold out judgement on anthropogenic causes. But you damn sure better believe I'm for erring on the side of caution.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?_r=0