No one is disputing that GHGs are not GHGs. However, the claimed consensus is still very much disputed.
It really isn't.
If overstated claims are made on just the level of consensus, what other overstated claims might there be? Why might they be made?
I have no idea what you're talking about. Note that the deniers tend to take their own hyperbolic mischaracterizations of the actual scientific projections and impute them to actual scientists.
Given the above, I think it reasonable to be rather dubious about the proposed solutions...
Which solutions? Be specific.
...it reasonable to expect, and perhaps even to demand, solutions other than a massive, world economy destroying, wealth transfer from the Western Industrial nations to all the other nations, an economy destroying reckless abandonment of affordable energy sources.
Yaay, more incredibly inaccurate hyperbole.
None of what you're saying is true. Carbon taxes are just another tax, is fairly easy to implement, and is probably the most effective measure; cap-and-trade is a little more complex, but certainly won't doom the global economy; subsidies for sustainable energy sources are pretty cheap; the Green Climate Fund is also pretty cheap overall.
The alternatives, however, are pretty expensive. Hardening major cities against higher sea levels, and storms that are wetter and more intense, will cost billions upon billions of dollars; losing land to those same forces will also cost billions, and lives are already being lost; damage from climate change will further strain all sorts of resources, such as water supplies; forest fires will be more extensive; heat waves, which are already a major killer, are already becoming more wide-spread and more intense.
Mitigation has all sorts of pitfalls. CO2 capture might work, and might become more cost-effective, but will only make a tiny dent in the huge volumes of CO2 already spewed into the atmosphere. Attempts to reduce solar radiation hitting the earth -- such as injecting huge amounts of sulfur into the atmosphere -- could have all sorts of unforeseen consequences, even when they mimic natural events (like a volcanic eruption). All mitigation options run the risk of encouraging more CO2 production, since "we can fix this, just put more sulfur into the atmosphere!"
Although it is late in the day, we are still much much
much better off trying to prevent further harm, than in plodding ahead and not caring, especially when claims about costs are often exaggerations or outright lies.
