Climate Denial Crockery
Your argument looks like you're in favour of believing whatever justifies making the least effort. What "benefits" of global warming? (Being able to sit around in shorts and t-shirt more often than needing a coat isn't a huge benefit.) What "flaws" in the models? (The existence of fiction about bad stuff happening doesn't stop bad stuff happening in real life.)
``Show me some convincing evidence that
1 - there is a problem''
Dying coral reefs? The breakup of the Wilkins ice shelf?
``(e.g. death rates > birthrates) ''
Claiming that things must be OK because the population keeps growing is an incredibly simplistic, short-sighted view. The population has been growing since, um, the first human, and a potential (and potentially avoidable) catastrophe just round the corner won't be reflected in *current* birth and death rates. Are you saying that nothing needs to be done until people start dying?
``2 - that the cause has been indentified scientifically using the scientific method''
"The scientific method" involves coming up with a hypothesis based on observations, and testing it - you can reject the hypothesis when you find something that contradicts it. Have you observed something, missed by much of the scientific community, that casts doubts on the hypotheses that CO (i) is a greenhouse gas and (ii) results from burning fossil fuels?
``3. the "cure" can be shown to be effective without causing more damage than the problem.''
This is the difficult bit. There aren't even any remedial actions, let alone "cures", that don't cause some damage to individuals' comfort, convenience or bank balance. That's why discussions of any new potential solutions, such as geoengineering, are important.