The facts are that the supposed "global warming" phenomenon is not global in nature; it is, in fact, very regional and confined to the far northern part. While certainly important, such a regionalized warming trend can be helpful: storms become less violent because of a smaller temperature gradient, northern land masses become more viable for agriculture and food production (keep in mind, Grande Prairie, Alberta, a farm town in the north of the province, is one of the fastest growing cities in Canada) and, in general, warmer climates lead to greater biodiversity (you see a lot more diverse life in a rainforest than you do in the tundra).
The claims that we are well warmer than we should be are suspect-- even now, after one of the coldest late winters in recent memory, the data dummies are claiming it's above average.
The blaming of CO2 is suspect-- their most famous CO2 observations come from on top of an active volcano and continues to report steadily rising figures despite recorded emissions going down.
What makes anyone think we should trust the same voices parroting these talking points with the supposed solution, especially since they claim it has been hundreds of years in the making?