&#62;  If you are drawing the conclusion that there isn't evidence for AGW you are either denying evidence or ignorant of it.<p>You know what I'm waiting for? "The average temperature and standard deviation of these 50 regions are X and Y. We expect them to increase by A and B over the next five years. If that didn't happen in at least 35 regions, that would cast doubt on our model." I'm looking for falsifiable claims, and not seeing any. This instills doubt.<p>As for what I think after looking at most of the mainstream accessible things on climate? The Earth seems to be getting slowly warmer, that's been happening since before the Industrial Revolution, and probably isn't a bad thing. Pollution is a bad thing, but not because it's going to bring on catastrophic amounts of global warming.<p>&#62; This is _all you have_.<p>No. The burden of proof is on the people who are making the claims of catastrophe and calls for trillions of dollars. The argument is not settled, and the burden is on them. The general culture of "global warming is a big deal, so we need to sell it any way possible" is a bad thing.<p>&#62; Classic political/conversational trick. "Btw I am actually a member of group _____, so I can say with authority." It's bullshit, of course. No one cares if you are a conservationist, and it doesn't affect your correctness in any way.<p>It does matter. Three reasons:<p>1. I believe there's local solutions to improve Earth's ecosystem, including managing nitrogen cycles, precipitation cycles, reforesting, irrigating, and increasing soil quality, and the (relatively small) amounts of warming can be managed that way.<p>2. Improving local ecosystems seems to give a much better bang for your buck than some set of global regulations managed by bureaucracy.<p>3. I wanted to preemptively let you know that I wasn't on Big Oil's payroll, or something like that.<p>Environment - good thing. Improving the environment - good thing. Catastrophic amounts of global warming? Unproven at best, strongly looking like false.