The critics have ET. If you haven’t seen their data then you are looking in the wrong places. At least you started out acknowleding it as a theory (mostly) until your last sentence.
I disagree with your statement of “the cost of making significant changes are not that great that it will cause us any hardship” If we just started with now what is the “minimum” effort which is signing Kyoto which will cost conservately tens of billions of dollars in the very least and offers miniscule benefits that you will not see in your lifetime.
In the meantime the ramifications of implementing these “protocols” and intiatives reaches far beyond us in So.Cal discussing when the housing market drops enough that we can buy a nice house for only(!) 250,000.00. The majority of the world couldn’t comprehend our “reality”. My point? If someone is subsisting on a couple of dollars a day and is starving, do you think they are concerned about global warming?
Environmentalism is big business, the same as oil and if you look both carefully and objectively you can see their message is flawed – by the premise that they can manage or preserve nature (life) itself. Question their message and claims! Go travel in a third world country, get off the manicured beach or the trendy little tourist enclaves and see how much good the environmental lobby did by blackmailing governments to stop using ddt.
So much to say and write about this but space and time will not allow it. All I can say is do your homework and look at both sides, and when you’re done look at it from a perspective other than environmental and repeat the process. I hope some here will do that, it’s sad to see intelligent people behave like sheep.
