WOW, simplifying the entire argument to two simple pieces of evidence that YOU picked out. And I like how you blow off the preponderance of opinion simply because it does not back up you lack of understanding or political opinion on the subject.
Try researching the subject for a few years before you jump in. You might find you can formulate a better argument than the one you just tried. That was just weak.
Ok let's see what the controversey is about then.
Global Warming is the problem that everyone claims to be the issue not global cooling. Call it what you want but it boils down to the fact that everyone is concerned with the warming trend that has been continuously brought up.
Second, the discussion is about what we as humans are doing that is possibly causing this. If we are not causing this or we can not do anything to effect the trend either way then why have a discussion about it? That means there is a section of people that believe we can do something to effect it or that we are in fact causing it. Everything else stems from these two basic points so in fact it is rather simple.
As for the Urban Heat islands etc yes urban areas heat up more than other parts but we have seen an overall planet temperature increase of .75 Celsius. Yes there are warmer areas than others but that also means there are areas that have cooled.
The harm from acting on this slimmest of correlative trending "evidence" is financial. If we spend all the money that the various groups say we need to spend on more studies (huh? I thought we had this nailed down already), direct action by limiting CO2 emissions (stop driving, stop burning fossil fuels is all anyone can come up with) the results are devastating. And when you look at what the issues are and then who would not be held to the standard (India, China) then it kind of gives you pause. If this is such a huge hairy problem why isn't everyone reducing the output of CO2? Why are some countries exempt?
Follow the money people. This is a way for more people to get more money.
I am all for stimulating "Green" industries and products that use less energy. The ubiquitous CFL is a decent example. It costs more than a regular bulb but let's face it, it has proven itself to be much more cost efficient up front (if you look at what it costs to properly dispose of one those costs go *poof* though so just keep polluting the environment with mercury by throwing them in the kitchen dust bin).
All global warming boils down too is some pseudo science that is trying to predict the weather. Yes it is that simple. You can bring out all sorts of algorithms to make it complicated but all this is is weather forecasting on a bigger more complicated scale. And then we find out that the folks who are recording temps at best, have been making mistakes and at worst are actually making wrong numbers up on purpose.
So is it more scientific to be skeptical or to just drink the kool-aid?