You are making your error in only reading one side of the story. Do a little reading and don't accept consensus as science. I have a whole file full of articles that refute your global warming meta-narrative, but I think that it would be better if you did your own research before you make up your mind.
The problem with meta-narratives is that they create a truth that fits their overall world view, rather than prove a truth. Like Al Gore claiming that the oceans are going to rise twenty feet and swamp parts of the world. It just flat out not going to happen. The science indicates that the worst cast scenario is less than twenty inches and this was even included in the UN report on climate change. I could go on and on, but you really need to do some research on studies that aren't paid for by socialists.
I have. So have lots of economists and climatologists who aren't leftwing wackos. The evidence points to a strong possibility that human-generated CO2 is causing at least some warming.
There are no serious climatologists who will deny that there is at least some non-negligible probability that global warming is at least partially being generated by humans. All the dissenters have done is show that there is considerable uncertainty regarding that proability. But no one can say with any confidence that that probability is zero.
Others will object that human caused global warming isn't proven. True, but that's beside the point. It can't be proven that human activies aren't causing global warming, either.
We live in the world of uncertainty, so it is simply irrational to wait until we have absolute proof before taking action. The fact is, if human caused global warming is real, it can hurt us regardless of whether it can be proven or not. Hence it is irrational to demand proof before taking action, just as it would be irrational for a doctor to wait for absolute proof before operating on a patient whom he strongly suspects of having a life-threatening condition.
Once you admit that there is some sigificant chance that global warming has a human cause (which everyone admits), it becomes an optimization problem. There are some expected costs associated with warming, and there are costs associated with measures we can take to reduce it. Like with most tradeoffs, neither extreme is likely the optimal solution (corner solutions tend to be rare in the real world). Rather, the optimum is most likely somewhere in between: to take some measures to curtail global warming, but not do everything possible. There are reputable, conservative economists working on this problem as we speak.
Besides, there are certain things that would help reduce global warming that we should be doing anyway for security reasons, such as building more nuclear power plants and start reprocessing nuclear fuel.
Of course, the hysteria of Algore and the rest of the extreme left engage is in equally irrational, but that doesn't mean the opposite extreme is any better.