You might be. The primary unmistakable cause of atmospheric CO2 increase since 1850 is human activities, primarily fossil fuel burning.
That being the case, "if" there is genuine global warming, and "if" it is significantly caused by man made co2, then we're just SOL because we can't eliminate that much co2 without destroying our economies.
I don't take that dim view. Our economy and the global economy is very, very vulnerable to energy production. As fossil fuel prices go up, that's going to change, or there are going to be serious economic consequences. Changing our energy infrastructure -- increasingly viewed as necessary -- will accrue environmental benefits. And, I submit, were we foolish enough to do so, the resulting poverty and disease in 75% of the world would be a whole lot worse than theoretical damage from global warming.
There are potential problems from global warming (increased drought potential, loss of freshwater resources, spread of tropical diseases) that aren't pretty. But one thing that must continue is raising the economic levels of citizens in Third World countries. That has environmental benefits as well.
Sir:
What will be the 2PM temperature in Milwaukee, Tuesday after next?
Surely, if you can forecast average GLOBAL temperatures for 2100, you can forecast the tempurture in one North American location in the next 14 days? If not, you are admitting undeterminable variations in data which of necessity contaminate your long term forecast at least equally with the skies over Milwaukee in two weeks.
Like all Global Warming devotees, your conclusions are those of a scientific pretender, a regurgitator of the irrelevant, of the incomplete and of the distorted.. This qualifies one, for an appearence on the MSM, but does not lend validity to pretentious speculation.
Therefore, the suggestion that man is causing global warming is, at best, wild speculation.
At worst, it's a sad attempt to gain power.