My take on the theory of anthropogenic global warming is best summed up by Newton’s third law of academics: For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD.

A SlashDot poster asked, “Why Are People Getting Worked Up?” and said:

Regardless if global warming is a problem, we should ALL strive to lessen our effect on the environment. Restricting emissions that may not heat up the planet, BUT have noticeable problems on health of humans and wildlife. I feel like I have to remind people that even if global warming is false we should always do what we can to conserve our resources and lessen pollution.

My response was modded +5, Insightful:

If I were to be "worked up" it would be because it is not rational to do the right thing for the wrong reasons. And when I'm told, "oh, well, even if the conclusion of AGW is wrong it still means we need to do such and such" then I become immediately suspicious. I don't like handwaving. The data should stand, or fall, on it's own merits.

Having to resort to an appeal to consequences to make one’s case makes me immediately suspicious that the case is not strong enough to stand on its own.