"If you could vote for a change in climate, you would always want a warmer one," says Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at the University of London. "Cold is nearly always worse for everything - the economy, agriculture, disease, biodiversity".
Other scientists dispute these claims, and point to other evidence.
And that's exactly how science works -- you make a hypothesis, then you test it with an experiment or compare it to evidence to see if it stands up.
The problems is, both sides of the global warming debate have made some pretty outrageous statements -- which leaves us citizens in the middle not knowing who to believe. And that can be dangerous: if a group keeps making extreme claims that turn out to be wrong, who will believe them when they're right?
What do YOU think? Is the debate over global warming helpful, or confusing? What, if anything, should we be doing about it?