I thought it had basically been proven scientifically quite some time ago that global warming is nothing more than the natural and espected climatic cycle of the Earth. Of course you can always bride 'authorities' to speak one way or another (like is common in courtrooms); so I feel it is undecided issue.
However you feel about that,...
Consider "global warming = global starvation":
This is far from a proven fact. Many independent studies have concluded that rising concentrations of 'greenhouse gasses' and the liberation of VAST tracts of nutrient rich arable land in Canada and Siberia would dramatically INCREASE the global food supply;  as only a relatively small percentage of the currently arable land (of lower agricultural output and which is only arable with heavy nitrate fertilization <- derived from petroleum) of the Earth would be made unusable by the same temperature increase.
So that is inconclusive too. It is easily arguable (and I am not going to be arguing about it here), using pecisely the same logic, that humanity should be attempting to accelerate global warming as possibly the only feesible course of action to meet rising food supply requirements...
Example:
"Maybe if we can all pull together to jack up the planet's temp. a couple more degrees, we can stave off that impending world war over diminishing food supply." <- consider that using the preacher's logic (ok, he might be a politician), and you can prove that too.
False logic is no good way to carry on a scientific investigation; or to present scientific fact.

I have a brain to think through issues. I remember the 'ice age is coming again' craze from a while back. I'm certainly not going to have mind made up for me about this by somebody else's faulty logic.

Friends don't let friends use booleans.