fishmeester, it is unclear right now whether human pollution is really the primary cause of global warming. For instance, a great part of the greenhouse effect is caused by the ozone layer. But without it, wed fry our hides with the sun's rays...
The only thing we are SURE of about pollution, is that it is in dangerous concentrations over big cities, and greatly affect temperatures there. Does it affect global level temperature? We don't know. It might.

In short, we know the planets going warmer, we have evidence for that: Ice caps ARE melting, and there is life in the polar seas where there wasn't life before. But we don't know whether or not our impact on it is nearly as important as environmentalists imply. It might just be a phase the planet is going through (actually, we KNOW our planet naturally goes through states of warmth and cold. We might still be making the warmth period worse though...but we don't know that!) If it is the case, it means the ice caps WILL melt, and there is nothing we can do about it.
Of course, that does not mean we are to reject the hypothesis that we are actually causing the problem. Just that it is far from confirmed, and as long as it isn't, we shouldn't throw all of our money on it.

That is not to say that pollution is good, either. it means that we have much better reasons than global warming to deal with pollution, such as the direct impact it has on our health. Global warming has become a key word in political debates, and an easy tool to arbitrarily attack any industry.

Though I understand what he's trying to say, something else commes to mind during his end statements. "Are you willing to gamble with the fate of the world? How lucky do you feel?"

His conclution is that the safest thing to do is use tons of recources and change they way our world works, in case something might happen. I've heard this argument before. Let's take something like, religion. The safest thing is to be religious, because if you happen to be wrong, you'll go to the nice place instead of the bad one. You'll just have to devote your entire life to do it, and besides, there are so many telling you you should. All for the sake of being safe. That is more a threat than an argument, but never mind that.

In any case, most of the worlds "dangerous" pollution commes from oil and gas, which will most likely be depleeted within the next decade. Of course others still exist, but the biggest badguys will be forced to be changed into something more less toxic anyway. I'm not fan of pollution. Not because the world is going to die, but because it can be hazardous to your health. That's a big difference. For example using Diesel cars send out less CO2, but are more dangerous to humans. Go figure.

Frankie, actually we have already affected our climate, a lot. if there were no clouds, we would fry like in hell in our own heat we produce every day.

So, we're most likely screwed since global warming's already starting and even if we battled it with all our technological might right now, we would still suffer a bit from it. And we all know we're not battling it with all our might right now.

That guy should get a Nobel price.

This guy forgot another, important possibility: That global warming is real, is a normal state our planet has to go through, and that we cannot affect it in any way, and that it will happen no matter what....
In this case, if we do try to do some radical changes and use ressources on this problem, we will be disarmed and weak when the catastrophes do happen.