Go ahead and call me all the usual names (I don't care), but I'm a skeptic of a few things - especially things like science that has strong political influences

Go ahead and call me all the usual names (I don't care), but I'm a skeptic of a few things - especially things like science that has strong political influences/biases/implications - and yes, sometimes even mainstream science. But no, I don't deny or ignore the apparent trends. That's why I also don't feel (as others have expressed here) any sense of grave alarmism or fear about the effects of warming. When climate-related deaths have steadily decreased in recent history[1], shouldn't we really be more concerned with adapting (or continuing to adapt) our own environments to deal with the earth's climate? That doesn't mean we shouldn't be environmentally conscious; just the opposite. We should be conscious of our environment, both in terms of what nature provides and in terms of how we adapt to it. Surely, very few people alive today would be suited to living in many populous places in the world without the protections afforded by human invention - today or pre-industrialization. Technological progress (much of which is a product of fossil fuels) has enabled us to live significantly longer lives, and fewer people are in climate-related danger now than ever before in history. In my view, that's a good thing. [1] http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/wp-content/uploads/boden.png http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/wp-content/uploads/...