Global warming is the increase in the average temperature
of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century
and its projected continuation. Global surface temperature increased
0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the last century.[1][A] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation are responsible for most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century.[1] The IPCC also concludes that natural phenomena such as solar variation and volcanoes produced most of the warming from pre-industrial times to 19...

Global warming is the increase in the average temperature
of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century
and its projected continuation. Global surface temperature increased
0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the last century.[1][A] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation are responsible for most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century.[1] The IPCC also concludes that natural phenomena such as solar variation and volcanoes produced most of the warming from pre-industrial times to 1950 and had a small cooling effect afterward.[2][3] These basic conclusions have been endorsed by more than 45 scientific societies and academies of science,[B] including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.[4]
[from Wikipedia's entry; emphasis mine. That "these basic conclusions have been endorsed by ... including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized nations" is simply a fact; please don't take the typical "don't trust Wikipedia" meme on something so clear.]

And the "controversy?"

In the western world, the concept and the appropriate responses are contested. Nick Pidgeon, professor at Cardiff University,
describe "results show the different stages of engagement about global
warming on each side of the Atlantic" where Europe debates the
appropriate responses while the United States debates whether climate
change is happening.[111]

International debates weigh the benefits of limiting industrial emissions of greenhouse gases against the costs that such changes would entail.[97] Using economic incentives, alternative and renewable energy have been promoted to reduce emissions while building infrastructure.[112][113] Business-ce...

read more»

And the "controversy?"

In the western world, the concept and the appropriate responses are contested. Nick Pidgeon, professor at Cardiff University,
describe "results show the different stages of engagement about global
warming on each side of the Atlantic" where Europe debates the
appropriate responses while the United States debates whether climate
change is happening.[111]

International debates weigh the benefits of limiting industrial emissions of greenhouse gases against the costs that such changes would entail.[97] Using economic incentives, alternative and renewable energy have been promoted to reduce emissions while building infrastructure.[112][113] Business-centered organizations, conservative commentators, and companies such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute and ExxonMobil have downplayed IPCC climate change scenarios, funded scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus, and provided their own projections of the economic cost of stricter controls.[114][115][116][117]
Environmental organizations and public figures have emphasized changes
in the current climate and the risks they entail, while promoting
adaptation to changes in infrastructural needs and emissions reductions.[118] Some fossil fuel companies have scaled back their efforts in recent years,[119] or called for policies to reduce global warming.[120]

Everyone in the world benefits from fighting global warming, but only a select few benefit from letting it go on, so it's no surprise that those select few are spending millions of dollars to try to "muddy" solid science proving the detrimental effects of climate change. The fact that some people have focused on just certain aspects of climate change, like Greenhouse Gases, CO2, Global Warming and Hydrocarbon Poisoning does not dilute the impact of the entire issue.

The fact of the matter is that there is a plethora of solid, verifiable science that proves the damage of climate change to humans, and society, and a smattering of well-paid people acting like defence attorneys in the world's m...

Everyone in the world benefits from fighting global warming, but only a select few benefit from letting it go on, so it's no surprise that those select few are spending millions of dollars to try to "muddy" solid science proving the detrimental effects of climate change. The fact that some people have focused on just certain aspects of climate change, like Greenhouse Gases, CO2, Global Warming and Hydrocarbon Poisoning does not dilute the impact of the entire issue.

The fact of the matter is that there is a plethora of solid, verifiable science that proves the damage of climate change to humans, and society, and a smattering of well-paid people acting like defence attorneys in the world's most serious trial, trying desperately to just introduce an illusion of "reasonable doubt" into a very clear issue, to allow their employers to continue to profit at criminal levels, regardless of the detrimental effects their destructive ways have on human society.

The idea of a "religion" has been floated, and in truth, that's a good analogy; profits at the expense of your fellow man and common sense is like a system of idol worship in our society; with anything, even murder, being justifiable, so long as someone is making profits.

Look at the science; don't let people with no interest in your well being draw a veil of doubt over something that is conclusively proven. Fight the anti-intellectualization movement in America that idolizes personalities and talking points over solid data and science. Don't get sucked into the Religion of Deniers — that's the kind of mentality that led to the Spanish Inquisition.