That's speculation, not evidence. I said evidence.
There's no such thing as evidence regarding the future. When the future becomes the present, we can measure it. Until then, we can only predict. Absolutely everyone knows this.
So in fact, the feedback could be greater than the models predict, since (you baselessly allege) the model predictions are uncertain.
Thanks for validating the need for urgent action.
If the models underestimate the feedback, then, short of a holocaust (which I presume you aren't openly advocating) there's no significant action anyone could take. We could do insignificant things for the sake of "doing something", but the benefits would be tiny, even if the costs were huge.
If the models are right, for example, Germany's pioneering $110 Billion energy program will delay the expected temperature increase in the year 2100 by 37 hours.
The relative stability of the climate, despite numerous past disruptions, argues against strong positive feedback.
Relatively stability compared to what? Other versions of the earth?
Compared to a climate that gets disrupted a little by some warming event or some additional carbon in the atmosphere, then the strong positive feedback makes it warmer and warmer and warmer until it's too hot to live. If this had happened, we wouldn't be here to talk about it. The Earth's climate is more stable, relatively, than this.
If the feedback were mildly negative instead of strongly positive, the climate would tend toward temperatures within a range -- like the climate we have here on Earth. Disruptions would raise or lower the temperature sometimes, but temperatures would stabilize.
If there were strong positive feedback, past disruptions would have caused the climate to get apocalyptically hot
No it wouldn't.
Where's your evidence?