Point 1: That one is pretty near zero doubt: NASA data. There are other sources as well, and even anti-AGW folks usually acknowledge a rise.
Yup, that's a given, but you have to start somewhere, and temperatures have been roughly flat since 1998.
Point 2: Too vague to answer usefully, because "significant" is not defined. That means that a pro-AGW and an anti-AGW will see the same data and come to opposite conclusions about whether it's significant.
Exactly - it's a valid point of debate, that also feeds into discussion of 6, 7, 8 (as opposed to dogma of pro-AGW folks). There is a point, (e.g. 10C/yr) where it's simply fact, but we're not there.
Point 3: Probably yes - ... this is a reasonably accurate hypothesis. This is about as close as we'll be able to come to a definitive yes without a couple more planet Earths and a few centuries to test things out more thoroughly.
My point exactly. It's reasonable, but there's a lot of reasonable doubt here without more Earths and more centuries, and certainly not a validated scientific truth.
Point 4: Probably yes (see point 3), but even if not this isn't entirely relevant. If it's caused by something else (cow farts, volcanos, etc), we still need to clean up the mess if we're going to survive.
It goes to #5 - if it's orbital fluctuations, we probably can't fix it.
Point 5: Almost definitely no. The reason is that those with the power to do something about it have a vested interest in not doing anything. In other words, the problem is politics, not science.
There are many politicians who would love to do something about it, because it gives them more tax dollars, greater authority, and reinforces that feeling that they know better than the peons.
Point 6: Most studies on the theorized effects of global climate change on economies give this one a definite yes. Although the sea level thing is the one that's entered popular culture, the problems include desertification of farm land, water shortages, increased number and strength of tropical storms / hurricanes / monsoons, and the political fallout from all of those (starving homeless people tend to do desperate things like start wars).
It seems to be popular culture these days to theorize on the disasters that could befall mankind. The point is there could be upsides, like perhaps farming in Siberia and Canada that could feed millions. I for one am not arrogant enough to assume that the optimal temperature of Earth is what it was in 19XX.
Point 7: All of your listed actions are pretty much fantasy. What most governments are actually talking about is regulating the emission of CO2 in much the same way that they've regulated the emission of SO2.
Cap and Trade would cost trillions... why do you say I am dreaming?
Point 8: Fairly high, for the reasons laid out in point 5.
Yup - another reason not to monkey with things we don't fully understand.
Basically, the way I see it, there's a problem, and we're absolutely screwed because those who might be able to do something effective about it don't want to. There's just too much short-term gain in doing nothing for anyone to really do something.
Well you've acknowledged (admirably) that there is doubt in some of these things, so I say if there's doubt in the existence of the problem, doubt in the extent of the problem, doubt if it's even a bad thing, doubt in how to "fix" it, and doubt in whether or not or fix would make things worse, I doubt we should be doing anything drastic about it.
