Well Steven, I think you hit all the major conservative talking points there, so I commend you for your thoroughness. However, what you posted shows a fundamental misunderstanding of even *basic* science, let alone climate change science. One problem with climate change detractors is that they have no idea what concepts to rail against because they don't understand the underlying issues. Many websites have tried to patiently explain and debunk the talking points raised here, but I have to point out the most egregious one, since it really does you no favours to include it.
No, carbon dioxide is not a "pollutant" is the sense that "if you inhale it it won't give you cancer" or whatnot. What IS certain, and what is not in any way, shape, or form contested by ANY of the climate change skeptics (except the woefully misinformed ones) is that CO2 contributes to what we know as the greenhouse effect. There is no debate about this. None. It's a concept in physics, and a very well understood one, at that. What is also not contested is that the level of atmospheric CO2 is steadily rising. What IS contested by some is whether or not this is due to anthropogenic (man-made causes). Fine, great, that's a debate for elsewhere. But you seem to imply that rising levels of CO2, whatever the cause, will be all rainbows and sunshine for the planet, when nothing could be further from the truth.
Yes, plants need CO2, and yes, increased levels of CO2 will cause plants to grow more effectively - this has been known for a very long time. The problem is (as I already mentioned above), increased CO2 also means an increased greenhouse effect, which in turn leads to an increase in the average temperature of the earth - and it's THAT which will screw us over in the long run. Remember, the warming is uneven - some areas will be far more hard-hit than others. It just so happens that those areas don't really fall within the borders of any of the more industrialized/economically important countries, so it's easy for people not to care about them - at least initially. But when that leads to widespread famine and population crises arising from rapid immigration, then it'll start hitting those other countries a little harder. And that's just the beginning.
Yes, we in Canada are uniquely geographically positioned to not be too adversely affected by rising global temperatures, but it won't be that way forever. Oh, and for future reference, don't reference Al Gore in a discussion such as this, as it only shows that your motivations are more political than scientific - Al Gore was simply a mouthpiece for the scientists who could not effectively get their message out any other way - and you know what? It worked. The only unfortunate thing about using him as the voice of the science was that it caused rather partisan people to believe that actual climate science was a political concept, when it shouldn't be considered that way.
