Humanity easily adapts, there is a drought in a region, fine, import crops from somewhere else yet we are bad for the planet. You know one of the extinction events that affect wifelife populations that occur ever few million years, whether it is an asteriod or huge volcanic activity? Well according to science we are currently one. 

Increase Co2 in the ocean which is affecting algae and coral reefs can't be completely naturally occuring (well unless you include 7 billion humans breathing), a lot of extra Co2 is being dumpted into the atmosphere for the ocean to absorb from fossil fuel burning. The planet can change climate and naturally compensate for changes, flora and fauna give and take Co2 to do this but it's the sharp rise in Co2 in the atmosphere which is different, from the extra produced Co2, that is the concern. They measure this by doing those ice core drill things.

Yet, what you said of the latter is spot on, regardless of whether you believe man is causing a change, poluting and causing damage to our world isn't viable.

That we can affect the atmosphere is well known.
When I grew up the hole in the ozone layer was the big threat. CFC gasses were banned, old fridges were disposed of correctly and it is getting better now, no longer a big threat.
Then car emissions were to blame for forests dying and old buildings getting damaged. Catalytic converters became mandatory for all vehicles and regular emission tests are now required to be allowed to drive.
The problem with CO2 is, it's a natural gas and the effects, warming up, melting glaciers, are part of a normal natural cycle. Nature is used to change, however not at the pace we're accelerating it too. People will be able to adapt too, although not everyone has the luxury to move to a better climate or out of the way of a rising ocean.

I live a "democracy" bend on it's own destructoin where you can vote for anything but change.

i believe i can recognize a power- and moneygrabbing scam from miles away. This is one. If it ever had some scientific merit, those scientists failed science in a horrible way.

- It is mostly anthropogenic.
- It doesn't mean the end of the world or civilization as some like to hype it up to.
- There are negative (and yes positive) effects. While it seems as if the long-term net effect is negative, this is almost impossible to predict, and very subjective based on varying values.

- A hundred years from now we will think of climate change like we did the crisis of the industrial revolution creating so large a population that we can't sustain its consumption (see: Malthus.) Sure the climate will have changed, but not so greatly that we need to demolish civilization. Coastal cities will adjust with new technology, and in some areas (such as in colder regions, food production can increase due to higher global temperatures.)

- The effects are disproportionate. Some countries will be affected a lot more than others, negatively and positively.

- Runaway greenhouse effect (and it ilk) are scare tactics. The probability for such models to come fruition are similar to winning the recent power-ball that was in the news for a week or so, very little.

Climate change is real, I don't think there's denying that. Whether it's cause by man, I don't know, but it's a problem either way and something should be done about it. I'd also like to leave this here:

I don't know much about economics, but at first, it would seem to me that actions against climate change create new jobs, new technologies, and even new industries. The ones that suffer from those actions are the old, polluting industries. Now this is a political statement, but I don't personally think there's a problem with polluting becoming more expensive.

I always chuckle reading one those completely fallacious comparisons.

Think about the following:

a) The powerball lottery WAS WON, by apparently at least three people. So the lottery was won with 100% probability.

b) Only a small fraction of the earth's population actually played the lottery. Compare that to the climate lottery, where the whole population plays.

If you are the (most likely republican party) American and think nothing about climate chance, go ask the people on all those islands (like Smith Island, for example) in the Chesapeake Bay. They have a different opinion. It's just a few steps away from Washington DC..

My take is:

We can decide it's absolutely stupid and do nothing about it only to find out when it's too late it was true, OR, we can accept it's true, do something about it and prevent a catastrophe, leaving us with no proof whatsoever it was ever true. Scenario one is fine if you're a smoker and endangering only your own life (and perhaps a few family members and friends) but when it comes to risking the human race scenario two is your only option.

Stuff needs to change. I don't care if we're the cause of this situation or if it's due to anything else but it doesn't matter, if we know that trees can eliminate the CO2 in the air producing O2 then we should all start planting as many trees as we can or at least stop cutting so many of them and try to recycle as much paper as we can. that'll solve most of the issues imho and, even if it's not our fault if the world is changing then we'll just be helping it, kind of a nice thing in exchange of life...
After that we MUST improve our technology so that any veichle runs of sole electricity so that there is no exhaust gas and any kind of oil tanker/oceanic disaster is prevented.

AGW is not only a hoax but all a fraud. disigned to redistribute wealth for social justice. Its to bring the 1st world crumbling down, to meet the 3rd.

When the raw data show's no warming for 18 years, it's simple the adjust the data, or use computers to model projected temperature. When the models are shown to be wrong by huge percentage, they change their data collection methods, and again adjust the numbers. Then they get caught emailing about their scandalous lies, but fret not the MSM got their back. Then create more fake number's like 97% of scientist agree