Too anecdotal. There's all kinds of reasons that story may exist, beyond the obvious politically motivated one. Was the data obtained in a controlled, scientific manner? Are we sure about that?
I'd just like to see a stronger consensus. As it is today, the whole thing is just way too polarized. I mean, I doubt anyone denies that people (along with any other organisms put into an environment) do have some effect. That's simple action/reaction stuff. I think the argument gets heated when scientists, politicians, Al Gores, etc. showcase humans as the chief cause of widespread destruction. There's an obvious money-trail here and a lot of people smell a skunk.
So, yeah.. I need some extraordinary evidence to back up all those extraordinary claims.