Despite the comment to the previous post, were global warming indeed to become 100% non-anthropogenic (all that carbon released, though?), it would not be bad for the political left. Ideally, the "green" industry wouldn't suffer either. Hopefully, consumers will catch on regardless of the likely outcome because saving our resources both for those in need and our future generations cannot be argued to be a bad thing.
When some on the Right critique global warming, they say that climate is too complex and no one can know for sure. Is it just to attack the Left and preserve all economic freedom? Socialism, when in the wrong hands, is bad, but if anyone brings up conservation with respect to the economy, that's what the opposition says we'd be headed toward. If done fairly, why would legislation aimed at protecting the environment and our future be bad? Are opponents that greedy that they can't give up one iota of economic "freedom?"
Again, resources are finite, but we can push back that final date. Can we not?