An important observation. It is indeed difficult to deny a global warming trend (although with recent events coming to light, it may get easier,) it is the cause of the warming that is in dispute, and by extension both how much more warming there may be in the future.
There is also dispute as to the consequences of such warming. Postive aspects of a warmer Earth have been suppressed, favoring only negative aspects.
You are aware that figures showing “global” warming have been shown to be falsified? Thanks to the Russians blowing the cover of the IPCC frat boys.
And even so, without global warming the last great ice age would not have ended?
You are partially correct according to my understanding of the science. Climate change may have a variety of causes with perhaps increased green house gases being part of the causation. The role of greenhouse gases with respect to other elements of the environment is not well understood because it is so complex. Alarmists emphasize a feedback effect that amplifies the impact of greenhouse gases. Others have indicated a dampening effect in which other elements of the environment offset the increased greenhouse gases. Others indicate that other forces such as local weather patterns and solar activity are the main causative elements. The alarmists indicate that the basic science is settled but I do not concur.
Even if you accept the primary role of greenhouse gases, the degree of warming, impacts of warming (as you indicate), and policies are unclear. More than any other aspect, economic consequences are unclear. Alarmists indicate that we can put a brake on climate change with a 3% hit to GDP. I think that 3% is a large amount especially since most impact will be here. However, there is no reliable economic model about moving to a highly carbon reduced society because technology does not exist for this transformation. The most likely result of higher energy taxes will be much lower consumption and production, not innovation. Europe has had very high gasoline prices for 25 years with little or no movement away from oil. In addition, major developing countries will be increasing their carbon output, swamping any reductions here. The most likely result of high energy taxation will be economic ruin.
It is hopeless to engage the left in a dialogue about environmental policies, especially climate change policies. They are not totally closed about the subject using ridicule to achieve cheap points. They have no understanding about diminishing returns and economic analysis. They have Utopian views (free lunch) about worlds in which perfect energy sources and production exist. Any cost to achieve this perfect world is justified.
This is not true at all. The numbers that are pointed to as supporting warming are falsified and cherry picked. Many excellent articles have spelled out how 3/4 of the weather collection data points were omitted from the data used to show warming and that those left did not include most of Russia, any high altitude sights in Bolivia, and only 2 in California both in proximity to asphalt, just to name a few obvious problems. The data points that were included were massaged and manipulated by a model that has been shown to produce a warming trend no matter what numbers are plugged into it.
There is global warming and cooling in a natural cycle to which mankind has contributed in an insignificant fashion. Just examine the ice ages, mini ice ages and warming trends before man entered the industrial age. It has been cooling for the last 10 years, a fact that I mourn since my tender shrubs are languishing. Only someone with something to gain or someone that wants a way to control the rest of us so we live they way they think we should could continue to claim there is global warming.