I don't think they have agreed it's the most cost-effective solution. I think the bottom line is that they agree that the effects of a warming of 2 degrees Celsius are so bad that we should try hard to avert it. We don't have the technology to remove enough carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to meet that goal, so the only option is to reduce emissions. Now, if you have a better idea, please speak up!

We don't have any way of storing energy efficiently? Really?

Governments around the world have agreed that we need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. That's the plan. If you have a better plan, write to your government and let them know what it is.

We're putting 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. At that rate, every person on Earth would be responsible for creating nearly 5 tons of tree each year to eat up all that carbon dioxide. I don't think there's enough space on land for that, even if everyone could plant trees that fast.

"They" didn't change "it". Global warming means exactly what it sounds like it means: the Earth is getting warmer on average. Climate change means all of the associated changes in the climate that go along with increased temperatures, such as increased drought in areas that are prone to drought. And you're right that global warming doesn't mean that it will get warmer everywhere, because at first some places will become cooler. However, as global warming progresses, it will eventually be hotter on each place on Earth than it was in the early 1900s.

Why would the ice in the Arctic and Antarctica be melting if the earth is cooling?

What predictions would those be? I've seen the temperature rise, the sea levels rise, and ice in the Arctic, the Antarctic, and Greenland melt. Those were all predicted before they occurred.

You're assuming that reducing carbon dioxide emissions will necessarily "hobble the economy". I've never seen a coherent explanation of why that would be the case. Could you explain?

No, the point of reducing carbon dioxide emissions is absolutely not to halt all climate change. We couldn't do such a thing if we tried! The problem is the rate of change of climate. We want to reduce our effect on the climate so it isn't changing as rapidly. If it changes more slowly, we can adapt to the change much more easily.

The whole point of my post was to see all of this horrible misinformation in favor of AGW being spread regularly, and it has uncovered... nothing. I just don't know what the deniers are even ranting about these days. Their arguments are just gibberish.

No, I'm not being thick. I was expecting actual misinformation such as "volcanoes produce more carbon dioxide than fossil fuels", "Antarctic ice is not melting", "the planet's temperature is not increasing", "the warming is due to increased solar output" and so on. If you ask me, the misinformation is coming from the other side, you know, the one that doesn't have actual evidence on their side so they need to fabricate it.

As for your "short period of time" claim, I did not see a date in the first article you posted, and it also provides no time frame for when the prediction holds. How you could consider that to be a prediction already proved incorrect, much less misinformation, is beyond me.

Those are predictions about the future, as noted by the future tense form "will X". Think about what you would need to do so show those statements are misinformation. You don't have a crystal ball, do you? Even if you do are could conclusively show the predictions are inaccurate, that still doesn't demonstrate willful dissent of misinformation, just someone making an incorrect prediction.

Again, could you give some misinformation that is regularly spewed by the left about climate change?

I'll ask again politely. Could you give some examples of misinformation that is regularly spewed? If you don't have any, just don't bother replying.

Nothing different or special about us? Humans and their livestock and pets make up 98% of the terrestrial vertebrate biomass. There are hundreds of millions of people and trillions of dollars in infrastructure just a meter or two above sea level. Our civilization will be massively disrupted if sea levels rise by just a meter and we experience bad droughts. Sure, the planet will survive, but we're fucked!

Ironically, these particles are named after exclamations. The God Particle was the name of a book originally titled The Goddamn Particle because the Higgs boson was so hard to find. A better name for the Oh-My-God Particle may be the Oh-Shit! Particle. The names have nothing to do with religion.