I'm not a scientist in the matter.Not to be argumentative, well, yes, to be argumentative since it is my nature, I would like to ask 3 questions since you have examined the evidence.
1. Of the total amount of earth's CO2 emissions, what is the percentage of human contribution of those CO2 emissions?
2. What laws of physics, thermodynamics, or natural science support how the percentage of human emissions can effect global temperatures?
3. Earth is a dynamic, open system with a multitude of feedback loops. Again, using the percentage of human CO2 emissions, describe to me the mechanism or system archetype's that explain Global Warming or Climate Change and how can they be used to predict future CC trends.
I'm also not a pseudo scientist egotistically vested in defensively spinning a ubiquitous incomplete set of irrelevant facts with which to "debate" the matter.
I posses a genius IQ with an EQ to match, and I examined the information as an intelligent lay person ...
... I also examined the political dynamics in the matter ...
... The socioeconomic bias ...
... And the psychological state of the two collective mindsets in the debate (about which I am qualified to do) ...
... And I reached my conclusion.
I'm confident in the accuracy of my findings.
The bottom line in the debate does appear to be who will pay for the cleanup of our pollutant waste ... and my qualified guess is that is what motivates your ubiquitous incomplete and thereby irrelevant set of fact-spinning in the matter.
It appears to me that the "anti global warming" side may be stumping for a Darwin Award.
So my question to you is this: since it is way beyond rational conjecture that our excessive pollutant waste is a significant detriment to our planet's health, regardless of which way it effects the temperature, the temperature which is merely a symptom of the problem, not a cause, why not spend whatever money it takes to clean up and prevent this very serious health hazzard?