"Well, I stand corrected on "undoing" CO2 levels in the atmosphere - seems we're basically stuck with what we've got for millennia."
If it makes you feel any better these are the model predictions which might again change tomorrow when they account for the next natural process they didnt realise.
"Seems like a damn good reason to cut back on emissions with great urgency."
If you want to go ahead. You are going to emit something and you are going to affect the world around you by merely existing.
"That said, I am not going to even attempt to argue your science-denialism"
Thats fine, that denialism has already brought you to realise a science mistake you acknowledge at the start of your comment, and you have so much faith in your belief you call science that it cannot be challenged (the antithesis of science) I dont feel any loss.
"but I admit to being somewhat morbidly intrigued in what exactly it is that you do believe"
>The climate changes naturally. It does, has done and continues to do so.
>It is possible (even potentially probable) we have an affect of some sort but we are still trying to understand what.
>MMCC theory has left the world of science and is now politics and religion which is why there is so much propaganda and constant stream of bull that any actual science is lost in the noise.
>People are so eager to believe whatever fast lie leaves the gate that the 'science' looks stupid by the constant rebuttals by truth and science.
>The entire 'propaganda' is so fragile they allowed a child to be scared by fiction (she can see Co2 in the air!) and put up as a meat shield who cant be criticized due to her age and disability no matter how much garbage she spouts.
>If the pushers of the fiction believed in it they would not be acting counter to the 'science'. How green is burning wood chips from new trees shipped from around the world? Why buy beach front property where it will be washed away in the great floods? The 'science' says we need economic growth yet so much effort to hamper it. A heavy push back against gas and nukes even though they are ways we can hit Co2 targets in favour of technology that doesnt work.
>Wind and solar were deployed without being able to do the job. Bills went up to support the deployment of monuments to a sky god in hope he farts. Solar works in parts of the world where it works. Spain built a concentrated solar plant to make plenty cheap energy only to find it will never pay for itself. But we tax and bill payers support inflated prices fed in from a solar panel on top of some rich/upper middle class roof in the UK.
The unreliables of course rely on gas as a backup, so we need to inefficiently run a gas power station to provide the power we dont get from them and here we are reliant on foreign gas but unwilling to look below our own feet. That wouldnt be green.
"so do you believe (against all evidence) that global temperatures are not rising?"
This is a question you should look at seriously for a while (seriously). Think about it. You would think that was a climate change denier, I know I would. Instead a climate change denier is someone who doesnt believe in the current half baked theory of MMCC. Look at how incorrect that is, how stupid, how wrong.
"Or, if you at least accept that, do you believe (against all evidence) that a few degrees of warming will not have serious consequences?"
As with everything there will be trade offs. One serious consequence is being better for life on earth. I am not stupid enough to command the tide out.
"Are you content that we go about business-as-usual with fossil fuels?"
Yes and no. Increasing efficiency, less tolerant of actual pollution and modern civilisation which requires cheap and plentiful energy. The part I say no to is the vilification of energy production while demanding energy that we need,
"Are you unconcerned about the social, economic and political consequences of flooding, drought, fires, storm devastation, sea-level rise, crop failure, etc."
Very shaky beliefs there sorry. Plenty of fire, flood and drought has been through political mismanagement (here in the UK, over in the US etc). Trying to claim crop failure on MMCC is funny but neglects being better conditions for growing crops. You say storms but previous claims of increased activity got shot down by a lack of increase. I like how you put sea level in there when I keep mocking about commanding the tide back, it wont listen to you!
However mitigation is an option. And increasing the prosperity of people on the globe makes it easier for mitigation technologies to be applied where needed. Instead of praying your monument to the sky gods will stop the climate from changing (that seems close to climate change denial).