answer:None. Actually, the way I see it, such arguments could even be considered to be beside the point. Even if global warming continues to be significantly confused to prevent clear action I’ve seen little to suggest moving to cleaner more sustainable energy sources is negative in the long term. And I’ve seen nothing yet that leads me to believe more environmental damage/destruction/contamination is better than less in a global view. Even if it were to be unequivocally proven that man has not contributed to global warming (which is difficult for me to believe), how about the health benefits of cleaning up our act? In the mean time, greater transparency in grant funding for published research and independent analysis of conflicts of interest would go a long way in this and other areas.