It's not.

There are three train of thoughts based on the environmental problems we are facing-

1. We don't have much time and need to act fast and reverse all the damage we've done. This is the main school of though amongst mainstream scientists.

2. It's all a faux green movement/one world Government conspriracy to reduce the worlds population. This is the second most popular theory not really amongst scientists but amongst the Alex Jones conspiracy theory type and the right wing pro business only/ christian fundamentalist type. i.e God told Noah there won't be any more floods so Global Warming can't cause sea levels to rise.

3. It's much worse than even the mainstream scientists are saying and we are periously close to extinction if we don't act now. Most life on earth goes extinct at some point, humans are no different except it's self imposed.

This is the greatest age man has ever lived in, and we make it ourselves. Mankind will survive almost anything on this planet.

Your forgetting one.

4. Something needs to be done... (probably) but in general claims aren't as bad as can be expected as results ALWAYS seem to GREATLY underperfom just about any publisized climate model and in general the current proposals will cost more wealth in lost development then later better techniques would like geoengineering... general panic being caused by models that haven't really panned out with reality yet.

See Super Freakanomics as an example or...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203646004577213244084429540.html?mod=googlenews_wsj#

Depends really how far you want to go with it.

If you want the broadest way possible, i'd say selfishness... and not Entitlement's selfishness or i'm super rich CEO selfishness. I'm talking about an overall MUCH more broad selfishness.

For example, the kind where people relax on the interne (or rage) or play video games while other people are just outright starving.

Hypocrite? Well yeah totally... who isn't.  The average first world person's life is largely unsustainable, hell the average poor person's first world life is probably a bit excessive.

As for why i'm not a fan of social welfare then? It's because politicians are just as selfish, and government, is nothing more then a projection of it's people, or in some cases, like the US, the people elected, who are mostly amorphous opinion-less people who want to run the government just so they can say they run the government.

Governments and corporations will only ever be as good as the people running them. So I don't expect either to be particularly helpful, but where I think I diverge from your average person in these beliefs is that I don't try and isolate myself as some super human sanctimonious jackass who thinks i'm the exception to the rule.

Entitlement can be a bit worse then rank greed, though that's largely just because Entitlement doesn't have any productive action, while in a greedy world at least SOMEONE is doing something useful.

I suppose that's why i tend to drift more towards a freiberg economics point of view that preferes honest, straightfoward, all applying laws to prevent negative aspects of rank greed we'd consider "cheating"  like say attacking a competitor before an iceskating event, and in general enough social welfare and government programs to keep people alive and healthy, but not to the point to where most people would be particularly happy relying on the government.

Full out Socialism/communism would be great if we were better people... but if we were better people we wouldn't need it anyway.

Yeah missed out that group. Also there's the The Global Warming is happening but it's due to the Earths natural cycle and next to nothing to do with Co2 emissions brigade. 

Most evidence I've come across tend to say human industrial activity is causing the Earths temperature to rise and as far as prediction models go they tend to be fairly accurate though as your graph shows with regards to actual rise in temperatures it's a bit hit and miss. This can be partially put down to not correctly predicting how fast or slow the world as a whole is industrialisng, using more or less fossil fuels, switch to renewable energy sources etc. Since the world is not in sync with regards to combatting climate change one day and another time it is, one can assume such predictions will continue to vary in accuracy.

About what needs to be done, well unfortuantely I don't think there's too much choice, action has to be taken now rather than wait and hope for some fancy new tech to come along. The emerging economies don't want to invest in expensive cleaner fuels yet until they develop their economies arguing most of the greenhouse gases were caused by Western Countries while the West doesn't want to invest in cleaner fuels unless the emerging economies do as well lest they put themselves at an economic disadvantage. It requires strong political will from all the major players to form a united front, just remains to be seen if the worlds politicians can think more about the human species as a whole rather than growing their own countries economies.

Most countries are taking some kind of rudimentary actions like more recycling takes places and less plastic bags are used while other countries such as Denmark actually have a plan in place to go completely renewable in a few decades time.

I don't see how you can claim something has been mostly accurate when the main graph about it hasn't been accurate at all.  I mean... industrilzation has increased past their expectations, not decreased, so if anything... it should be much worse.

Laregely the whole thing feels like that a lot of climate scientists think it will happen, but never really found conclusive causation, however kept pushing like they did soley out of concern that not doing so would cause a disaster.

Really though, future generations will likely wonder why we used Oil for so many things when we could of used it all on Plastic.

I meant predictions in other areas (C02 emmissions etc) not necessarily the rise & and fall of global temperatures.

There's a lot of proof climate change due to human activity is taking place.  http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Increases in CO2 doesn't really do much without the correlating tempeture changes though.  Otherwise it could be argued that other gases are more important or the modifier is much less then thought.

The biggest issue with the page you listed is a number of those things have just.... stopped or greatly, despite increases in CO2 production... as mentioned in the article I provided.

When if anything you would expect it to INCREASE, espiecally considering the fact that CO2 is supposed to have a feedback loop.  Aka more Co2 in the air makes the tempeture hotter, which causes ice to melt and a number of other factors which cause more greenhouse gasses in the air, making it hotter etc.

Havent read the entire thread but I think it is a sheep or follower mentality, most people just believe what they are told the most amount of times and dont go out and find out the truth for themselves.