Well, first of all, I'm not a scientist, so my point of view on global warming is based on only a modest ability to interpret published data and research. That being said, I do have an opinion; my opinion is that global warming is occurring, it is a long term trend, and that the weather extremes and climactic shifting that seems to be going on is symptomatic of the event. As far as mankind's influence on global warming, I believe the majority of scientific opinion that there is a high probability that mankind is having an effect on global warming; we just don't know how much of an effect for sure, exactly what will occur as a result of our influence on climate, or if modifying our behavior will slow down natural processes enough to prevent our climate from 'going over the edge' and causing global warming to rapidly accelerate, resulting in changes over decades rather than centuries.
My belief is that the risk is high enough, and there are other factors such as the world wide demand for oil, resulting energy crisis and political tensions to name just one, that it will behoove us to rapidly adapt to alternative energy sources and change our behavior in other ways that will minimize the impact that six billion+ human beings have on the environment. Nothing else makes sense.
So now that I have outlined my opinion and position on the matter of global warming and mankind's impact on the environment, perhaps my response to the question you asked itself may be received in the proper context.
We are, as a global society, presently in a pitched political battle about what steps we should take to protect the environment, act on the matter of global warming, and make those decisions based on the data we have so far even as research continues. On the one side, we have people who talk in terms of probability of outcome and propose both technological adaptation and legislation designed to provide incentives to those who adopt new technology as well as provide disincentives to those who pollute. On the other, we have people who denounce those technological advances, incentives and disincentives, saying that we should do nothing. Their rationale is that AGW-and in some cases, global warming itself-is not just a hoax and scam, but a series of hoaxes and scams, some of global proportions, designed to advance a series of agendas. These range from certain individuals wishing to enrich themselves-Al Gore chief among them-to such gargantuan schemes as bringing down the United States and even western culture, perpetuated in some cases from within by political activist groups who wish to destroy their own country by fomenting a revolution against democracy. Their primary argument is an objection to the costs involved in becoming more environmentally responsible via the expense of adopting technological advances and opening the door to excessive taxation. Again, their solution to the problems we are debating is to do nothing-to maintain the status quo, even as the money they object to spending more of flies out of their wallets at stunningly and ever-increasing rates with no end in sight to pay for the very status quo they support.
Now, who exactly are the people that headline each camp? On the GW/AGW side are thousands of scientists, politicians, world bodies and individuals who are analyzing data and conducting research on the environment, talking about it in terms of statistical probability, and suggesting that we adopt more environmentally friendly practices, accelerate the march toward alternative energy sources, and set up a system wherebye those who adopt greener technologies receive tax credits and those who do not pay the cost of those credits, a relatively straightforward system of incentives and disincentives, not unlike the 'gas guzzler' tax imposed some years ago, wherebye people who could afford costly vehicles could still buy and drive them, but paid a fee for the impact their habits had on the environment.
In the other camp, we have people who denounce any and all efforts to adapt to changing times-not just with regards to the issue of global warming, AGW or otherwise-but also regarding all of the other issues before us. They would reject alternative energy and developing new sources of fuel such as ethanol based fuels, biomass...in some cases wind and solar energy, in favor of drilling for more oil and building more refineries here at home, using more coal, and other sources, the negative impacts of which are well known aside from any possible influence on global warming, investing in more infrastructure for outdated technolology that will use more of a finite resource, and in general again just following the status quo and it's expotentially increasing costs. Rather than engaging the worlwide political body diplomatically, they favor simply walking away from the table because of the perception that the negotiations were slanted in such a way as to be excessively punitive toward the United States...likely true as that may be, rather than trying to modify the agreement to make it more palatable, the headliners of the opposition camp simply surrendered our position at the negotiating table and along with it our global environmental leadership.
And while we're talking about costs, let's just think about this-given the escalating tensions of maintaining petroleum supplies in face of increasing demand worldwide, at what point do we intervene militarily? How much of our present military involvement is really about control of oil supplies? And those people who object to alternative energy development based on cost...hmmm, do we ever calcuate the true 'footprint' of a gallon of gasoline based on what the military costs are for getting it into our tanks, both in terms of pure dollars and human life? NO. Nobody mentions that-but they sure talk about the costs of ethanol in terms of total 'footprint,' don't they? Well...that's a sidebar. Sorry.
On another level, the opposition pronounced scientific consensus not science at all, and that hue and cry was adopted as a rallying point for the opponents of GW/AGW.
They liken global warming proponents to flat earthers and talk about how the 'consensus' at the time was that the earth was not round until the people who believed that the world was flat were proven wrong. Of course, the logic is reversed-the proponents of global warming and mankind's possible influence on it have not been in the mainstream of opinon, as were the flat earthers; the people of ancient times who believed that the earth was round were villified, laughed at, and the data that they held which indicated that the earth might indeed be round was mocked or ignored in favor of the dogma of the past. While the flat earthers rested on their smug laurels, the believers in the 'theory' of a spherical body continued their research in the face of-at best, passive ignorance, and at worst, heated opposition with dire consequences. It doesn't really take much interpretation to see which society back then equates to which global warming camp today-yet inaccurate and in some cases downright deliberately deceptive comparisons abound in the opposition to global warming camp, all of which crumble under the most minor examination-along with the scientific underpinnings that are sometimes quoted, but usually not. And who was it, exactly, that got this whole 'consensus' ball rolling that has lead to the ridiculous and absurd debate about 'predicting the future?' A radio pundit. A talk show host. Someone with no scientific credentials whatsover-someone whose claim to fame is a resonant voice and the ability to schmooze over the airwaves.
Finally, in the face of all the reasoned research, data, discussion in terms of statistical probability, and debate about being better stewards of our environment not just to anticipate the possible negative affects of global warming but in favor of advancing technology that will benefit us in an increasingly dangerous world where energy demand and control of resources is the 'tipping point' that is throwing us into social chaos, we have people that denounce and ignore all the evidence in favor of their opinions here. They pretend to KNOW for sure that global warming is NOT occurring and that mankind's activities are NOT influential in the outcome. No doubt about it-they KNOW. Oddly enough, the premise of their 'knowledge' is that the best scientific minds on the planet CANNOT know that global warming IS occurring.
How about that. You ask how I feel about cohorts and opponents? Well, I'm just here for the entertainment value and I don't know that I have any real cohorts, but the opponents of global warming are looking pretty weak to me, and I don't put much stock in the obviously tainted and archaic opinions of anyone I only know as a dessert confection, to single out the "prominent" top contributor in this category.