So is the conversation something like, &quot;air&#x2F;water&#x2F;ground pollution&quot; X &quot;planet is becoming uninhabitable&quot;?  Where X differs depending on who is talking?<p>For Schwarzenegger, X seems to be &quot;therefore&quot;.  For me, X is more like, &quot;but not&quot;.  I treat the two arguments as separate.<p>Shocking warnings have always come with pollution.  For me, those warnings have mostly born out as true.  I have chronic asthma, probably from air pollution.  And, I have eyes so I can observe the haze and smog over the city in the morning.  I&#x27;ve been to China and seen and felt what happens when there are no pollution controls at all.  Rivers catching fire&#x2F;all the life being killed off in them by dumped waste is a real thing that happens.<p>Acid rain, though?  That one jumped the shark for me; I think acid rain was all hype.  Fantastic claims need really fantastic evidence is all I&#x27;m saying.<p>I do like pollution controls though and I am amazed at how improved the air quality is in the states over what it was in the 1970&#x27;s.  I have kids, and I want to continue our regime of pollution controls.  Renewable energy sources are the way to go.<p>Global warming appears to me to be bad science, however.  All the computer models predicted a spiraling warming effect, but instead we&#x27;re cooling off, and we&#x27;re potentially heading for another mini-ice age.  The sun, being the primary energy input for the system, is never causally linked to warming or cooling trends on our planet.  Why is that, especially when we can measure the sun&#x27;s energy output is not a constant?  Money and power is my guess.  I don&#x27;t see any proof - at our current rate of energy consumption and pollution - of how we are making a dent in this absolutely massive system.  The scientific claims seem to predict destabilization, and I just don&#x27;t see any proof of that happening.<p>Honestly, if global warming theorists want to bolster their claims, they should keep links between pollution and warming very abstract.  Trying to use health effects of pollution as a proof of atmospheric destruction weakens the argument because they&#x27;re two separate effects.  Arnold does a disservice to his cause here.