I think we need to change the discussion regarding climate change. For every scientist who says the world is warming, you'll can find another who says it isn't.

I think we need to change the discussion regarding climate change. For every scientist who says the world is warming, you'll can find another who says it isn't. That... really isn't true, you know. Depending on who you're asking, the opinions of scientists range from "a majority thinks it's the likeliest hypothesis" to "overwhelming agreement"--and the consensus tends to be stronger among those whose area of expertise is closer to the relevant subjects. There are, as always, a handful of vocal outliers, and plenty of non-scientists who think everything to do with climate change is bunk, but scientists in general? For every scientist who says the world is warming, you'll find you'll run out of the ones saying it isn't real fast. Is there a 'pro-pollution' argument? Sure--a simple cost-benefit analysis. Eliminating pollution entirely would pretty much require the destruction of technological civilization (and don't even ask about the ecological damage caused by the crime against Mother Nature that is "agriculture"). The real question is how to avoid causing irreparable damage or creating pollution faster than the environment can handle, while maximizing the benefits to humanity.