Now, I'm not sure how people can continue thinking its still uncertain that humans are hurting the earth. But, in any case, there has to be change. It's not even something that should be argued. Humanity does not have long to exist if we do not change our ways, for we do not yet posses the technology to move somewhere else if it were to get bad enough.
I would rather error on the side of caution. Some argue that it would be too costly. I think the benefits of saving the world far outweigh any costs we would face today. Even those who deny it is human caused, can't deny that air pollution is bad, and most of the solutions proposed would help cut down on air pollution.
I don't believe that the climate change issue is a worldwide conspiracy in which 95% of all scientists are a part of. That is not realistic.
What would a company do facing a possibility of a truly disastrous future? They would try to insure themselves against it. To me its moved from a scientific debate as to whether it will or will not happen to one on risk management given that a high enough percentage of people believe it will.
Regardless of your personal belief on if it is actually occurring, surely inaction can only be negligent in the extreme. Its like saying i leave my stove on because its unlikely it will burn down the house, but i just wouldn't risk my house over my preference for letting the stove run. Any argument trying to establish that its a lower probability than the scientific masses predict is ultimately taking a gamble with something they can't afford to lose.