On one side we have:

Gaia, protection of the environment, trees, the fight against pollution.

On the other side there is the Great Gravy Train-
Socialists and Greens clear away legal protection for nature and endangered species
to build wind turbines

http://notrickszone.com/2017/01/18/ge...

The 97% figure is fraudulent.
There was survey of many scientists. Responses were put into categories.
There was one, and only one, category that supported the human responsibility proposition, that was people who described themselves as climate scientists. All of these worked for gov or semi gov entities dependent on the carbon change scare for money.
When I use the word fraud here I do not mean accident or mistake but deliberate intention to mislead.

The story of economist Bjørn Lomborg is instructive.
Having been fed and exposed to the great prevalent myth of carbon change, he is a believer.
He worked out that the costs of the alarmist forecasts of the damage greatly exceeded the (astronomical) costs proposed to 'de-carbonize" economies. For this he has been hounded as a denier, has been subject to mass protest campaigns and has to be careful about appearing in public.
It is not science or economics that the protest is about, but the great gravy train.

What costs? You talk about costs as if there were well known costs. There are a lot of extreme examples in the media, but even the bulk of the people who agree with the AGW hypothesis don't actually believe the extreme scenario.

You state an opinion as fact. Actually you don't even state an opinion, you just mention a bunch of vague "costs".

What do YOU believe is going to happen if we don't change our usage. How many degrees warmer do you think it will get this century. What costs will exceed the benefits of increased greening higher crop productivity and warmer winters?

This is literally taking what we all wish were true and just saying it despite its being wrong. We found out all this energy stored in chemical bonds over millions of years, and by sheer luck releasing them in a few hundred years has nothing but benefits for other people.

At the same time, you start out by talking about a "net positive" if you weigh GDP growth and new technologies generated against the costs because you know this is all fantasy. You know the population surging to billions and releasing energy stored like this will have at least some costs for other people. It's highly inconvenient, though, if those costs are large. People like Naomi Klein will use it to sell socialism. So just start with what you wish were true even if it's not real.

You keep saying this stuff as if it were a fact. There is a wide range of reactions to increased CO2 from insignificant to inconvenient. The most reasonable projection will be a net positive for the next 60 years by which time we will probably have developed other technologies because they are more cost effective.

The cost of dealing with increased CO2 is an increase in plant life, the planet is significantly greener in the last few years as a result of CO2. The cost is increased crop productivity as plants grow better. The cost is fewer deaths in the winter from the cold -- unless idiots keep making energy more expensive to keep poor people from using it, i.e. warming their houses.

It starts with argument from personal incredulity and argument from final consequences. But he ends up with a conclusion that I suspect is right: It's unclear the costs of not burning fossil fuels are lower than dealing with the global warming burning them causes. It's a hard calculation. We know the costs of global warming will be high, but we don't know how much it will cost to mitigate it or how fast alternative energy would become practical if people burning fossil fuels had to compensate people affected by their activities. Despite how young the author looks in his picture, the tenor of the article is it probably won't be me paying the price for global warming so let's err on the side of someone else paying the price.