One of the problems with the whole global warming discussion is the synthetic pessimism that has been injected into by those who would use the science as an ideological weapon. Taken as a whole, the science behind anthropogenic global warming has its flaws, most of which are paved over by consensus (which is the weakest kind of science). And too many ideologues have taken up its cause because it supports their socio/political views. This has lead to two problems: 1) They have sullied what good science there is behind the study of climate change by attaching extra and scientifically unsupportable baggage to it which gives skeptics much fuel from branding the entire endeavor as socio/political maneuvering. 2) Because it fits their various causes, they have created an atmosphere in which the science cannot be questioned. They have elevated it to the status of religion or cult. It is to be taken, with all the ideological and non-scientific baggage, as gospel and without question. To do so invites ridicule and accusation. It has lead to many, though far from a majority according to the polls, to accept the science faithfully, while having little or no understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of it. And this is a problem for the real science because there is no science that is above question. That is the nature of science, it is ALWAYS open to re-evaluation.
The evidence of this is everywhere and has been magnified by the popular media who understand none of the science and less of the geopolitics that they are so willing to endorse.
That evidence is the pessimism itself, reflected perfectly by DeanChriss's post above. In a real and statistical sense the probability that all consequences of global warming, regardless of the cause, are going to cause bad things for all of even most species is astronomically low. In a real and statistical sense the probability that the consequences of global warming in the balance are going to cause more bad things than good is also highly if not astronomically improbable. We are talking about a planet and its myriad species and daily we hear prognostications that all is lost due to several degrees of global temperature change. This is possibly the greatest nonsense that has ever been foisted on a presumably educated public.
It simply is not possible to introduce a few variables, of even a lot of variable into a global system and have all or even most outcomes be what we would call undesirable.
And yet, I defy anyone to find any substantial article that discusses the good things that will come from global warming and this is an indictment of the media. Likewise, find studies that show how global warming will result in benefits to society and culture...this is an indictment of the ideologues. The worse part is that the scientific community has not adequately examined the potential of good things to come from it. This oversight is bad science and tarnishes the good.
I have read, seriously, that global warming will be beneficial to some species. So far those species are mosquitos, sharks, spiders and poison oak. Compare this with the species that will be harmed. Here's a hint: They are all fury and have large limpid eyes.
A lot of people disbelieve the idea of man-made climate change because it does not fit their political beliefs and because they don't understand the science. They are, in general, referred to as idiots. There are a lot of people who likewise don't understand the science, who believe in it because it fits their agenda, they are typically thought of as progressive, caring and thoughtful. There isn't much anyone can do about either of these groups.
But for populations and governments to respond to global warming appropriately it is going to require dropping the baggage of unfounded ideological pessimism which is being used as means to socio/political ends and a media willing to report on climate change in a rational and unbiased way. As it stands now, this ideological baggage is far more damaging to the cause of a responsible reaction to climate change than any of the scientific weaknesses inherent in its propositions.