I don't think that is necessarily wholly true.

The proposed responses to counterracting "man-made" global warming may be far, far more drastic, expensive, and time consuming (and have completely different methods) than what is needed for lowering pollution levels to acceptibility, I might hazard to guess.  In other words, it would be nice to see how the situation really is, then act upon that.

Furthermore, raising an uproar over what may be a worldwide deception (or, at the very least, horrificly bad science) is not advocating that we go around trashing the planet.  Rather, it means we really need to examine how the scientific and media communities work.

Actually it's the opposite from what I know. The things needed to reduce pollution are more vast than those alleged to reduce man-made global warming.

For example... coal-fired power plants can be made with lower CO2 emissions (the so called "clean coal"), but that's not enough to reduce all the pollution they generate. The worst coal pollutants like radioactivity, mercury, arsenium, small particulates aren't captured by the "clean" coal technologies.

Fun fact: a coal fired power plant releases 100 times more radiation than the equivalent nuclear power plant:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

They predicted an increase, actually the temperatures now averaged over say 5 years are less than the expected from all the data I have seen. An increase in temperature follows the idea and trends proposed by the models so why would it need specific mention?

While that may be true (or not true.  I don't know), my point was to demonstrate that to disagree with global warming isn't to advocate pollution, necessarily, especially for those of us who are uniformed on whats needed to combat pollution or global warming.

But I love nuclear power; I mean, it's nuclear :p

I understand, and I agree... I just don't see why there's so much outrage from certain segments of the public towards the man-made global warming theory, when the solutions to it would be beneficial on the whole.

I understand it when energy companies and other entities with economic interest in polluting do it, but for the public in general there are far better things to worry about.

I'm pro decreasing our impact on the environment whether climate change is human caused or not. Even if all of this is false what we're doing will and does have a negative impact on the world. I want to live in a world where we are sustainable, I want to have very little impact on the world environment as possible.

Yes I do think climate change is being partially caused by man, but helping the environment and replacing oil, coal etc with cleaner more renewable energy sources is the best way forward regardless.

Also global warming (if it exists) could likely be better controlled if the world went to a purely vegetarian diet. This could be done with far less hardship and trouble as it would significantly reduce methane emissions which are just as important.

I heard vegetarians fart more methane than us omnivores, so the benefit might not be that big.

One cow farts more methane than 10,000 vegetarians over and above what they would fart had they been omnivores.

I think it may (at least, for the public) be because of the idea of having been so largely deceive, or the the (apparently) entire scientific commnity so jumped the gun.  But that's one possibility.