You are just vomiting crap now and exposing your horribly poor grasp of how your planet works.
I don't really think anybody does, to be honest. Before I say anything further here, I want to divide this into four camps:
Climate alarmists
Climate scientists
Climate skeptics
Climate deniers
For climate alarmists, I think that is pretty straightforward. People who aren't necessarily speaking the truth or even really understand what is happening, don't even practice what they preach for the most part, and are basically just hell bent on getting their message across. Say Al Gore for example.
Climate scientists of course, those supporting the idea of being concerned over climate change and actually understanding the science behind it. By science of course, I mean the chemistry, meteorology, and oceanography.
Climate skeptics, same as the above, only those trying to quel concerns about it, while understanding the science behind it.
Climate deniers, who say there's no global warming at all.
And then there's me. I can't predict the climate with any degree of accuracy, nor have I done any original research. I'm at best an armchair scientist, so what comes from me may just be BS. That said, I have a take on the issue that I think will probably sit at odds with most of these other views.
I'm sure many here are familiar with the Pangaea theory. Long, long ago, when (literally) dinosaurs reigned the earth, nearly all of the landmass of earth was one big continent. At this time, due to the way the landmasses were formed, the climate was far too hot for the ice caps to exist at all. Meanwhile, oxygen content of the atmosphere was double what it is now, and more plant life existed than at any other point in history.
What many don't already know, is that this is destined to happen again. This is a theory that we call Pangea Ultima. According to this theory, the continents will stop moving in the direction they are moving, and then move back again to where they once were as the supercontinent called Pangea. Along with that comes, once again, a much hotter climate.
The point is, it doesn't matter if humanity exists or not. Global warming is happening, and will happen anyways. It will also probably get a lot cooler between now and then, and then hot, and then cool, etc. What I think gets most people is that they are too complacent in that the last 3,000 years, the climate has been relatively stable. I am a bit doubtful that it is mere coincidence that this stable period happens to coincide with the rise of civilization.
I'm not calling inevitable doom and gloom for humanity though. Far from it in fact.
The nice thing is that when (not if) these changes happen, we're actually shockingly resilient. Just to give you an idea, we can adapt to extreme environments that most of us consider inhospitable within a single generation. Case in point:
(can't post the link, sorry!)
Imagine that, Andean natives walking barefoot in biting ass cold temperatures with only 66% of the oxygen, and being perfectly comfortable. Yep, it happens.
As for myself: Where I live, the temperature is in the triple digits for about six months out of the year. I don't mind it at all, yet relatives who come visit whine all day about how hot it is.
Now when I tell most people about this, first they say "well yeah, bacteria can survive when it is hot..." But, while I'm sure that's true, very large animals thrived in those conditions as well.
Another argument I get is that it will cause mass relocation of populations which will cause all hell to break loose. I don't think that is true either; the temperature has been rising for a long time now, and people in the hottest regions of the planet haven't shown any indication of moving any time soon. They're more like me; they just adapt. There hasn't been any historical data to show that this has happened in the past either. In fact, the only climate related migrations that are known to have happened is when certain regions became too cold. For example, archeologists have found farms in places where today the temperature is so frigid that nothing can possibly grow there. I'd figure that if anything, warmer temperatures would mean increased farmland.
After those two arguments are exhausted, I get the argument that global warming would ruin the economy. I personally don't see that happening any worse than any other major event in recent history. But let's assume that to be the case for a minute. If the primary concern is the economy, then why are we considering putting caps on economic growth in order to stop global warming? We already know for certain that doing that will cause damage to the economy (if it doesn't grow, it stagnates - I don't think any economist would ever argue otherwise) but we don't have any guarantees of that happening with climate change.
I don't think anybody has any beef with the EPA, by the way. Yes, dumping hazardous chemicals or putting soot in the air is a bad thing. Even hardcore libertarians like Stossel support the EPA. (As a side note - I think when the president suggests that anybody wants dirty air and dirty water is just asinine. Being opposed to cap and trade doesn't equate to that at all.)
In case anybody hasn't noticed, I consider myself libertarian. Note the distinction between an anarchist and a libertarian. Libertarians are opposed to regulation in general, but will accept reasonable regulation. Regulations that make sugar expensive in the US compared to the rest of the world in order to "save jobs" so that we stick to HFCS are examples of unreasonable regulations. The EPA is a reasonable regulation. And while I'm probably what some consider a nut, I really don't care for Alex Jones and his crock of BS conspiracy theories.
---------------------
TL;DR: Keep london tidy, don't worry about global warming.
