But that's my skepticism in a nutshell. If I light some candles in my apartment it gets gradually warmer, For a while. Then the AC kicks in. The temperature feedback mechanism in my apartment is much larger than the heat source of a candle, or my gaming rig for that matter.
The feedbacks in place on this planet typical function over thousands of years. What's happening now is taking place over a 100 years. That's not lighting a couple of candles, that's dumping gasoline all over your apartment and setting it on fire.
It's not just the amount of warming, it's how fast it is occurring.
We know there's some sort of 100 k year cycle. Is it a feedback mechanism? Is it a strong one?
That's known as Milankovich cycles and it has to do with the natural orbital dynamics of the planet. It's not a feedback mechanism. And right now we should technically be cooling (an we were until we started burning fossil fuels in earnest).
Is more CO2 just going to kick in the cooling sooner, or overwhelm the cooling?
CO2 is not going to cool the plant. Fourier figured this out back in the early 1800's, and all the science done since then bears this out. Oh people have certainly tried to come up with negative feedbacks based on increased CO2, but none of them have stood up to the test. And now that scientists are runnin fully coupled climate models there is no evidence of a natural negative feedback from increasing CO2. In fact, they have been finding more positive feedbacks.
The one thing we do know is that "stable climate" is an oxymoron. Keeping temps at the same level just isn't one of our choices. So is warmer or cooler going to bring a better standard of living in the long run?
Neither. Our entire civilization depends on how the climate is. Climate shifts, even regional ones, can be quite painful to deal with an historically have caused whole civilization to collapse. And we could have kept things relatively stable if we hd started taking action 20 years ago, but we're way past that.
And is more CO2 going to make it warmer (the simple analysis) or cooler (due to corrective feedback coming sooner)?
There's plenty of peer-reviewed research to answer these questions, but in short yes to the first and no to the second.
And if it's going to get bad, what that cost in $, and what's it cost to avoid some of it in $, and what's the cheaper path?
That's just one aspect that climate scientists are researching. It WOULD have been cheaper if we had started taking steps to reduce fossil fuel consumption, but at this point we're going to see at least a 2C rise (even if we stopped all CO2 production today). There is also little hope for any serious actions to be taken in the near future. We lack the will and global cohesion. Basically, I doubt any serious action will be taken until it "gets bad" but by then it will be far to late to prevent anything.
It amazes my how many people have strong opinions about this, but have never thought about it beyond "man change - man change bad".
Science is not opinion. It is also not a popularity contest. The science shows that the climate is changing. The science shows that this will result in negative impacts. The science, in this case, is showing "man change bad". Make of that what you want.