Global Warming will not destroy Earth, and should not be so quickly acted against.

Believer, Your thesis seems to be "there are many reasons why global climate change should not be so quickly acted against." Let me begin by picking apart the basis of your argument, this would be the statement you made concerning the Little Climate Optimum. You have stated, "The last time a warming of the Earth's climate happened was around the Medieval times." This statement is actually incorrect. From 1860-1900 global land tempuratures have had an increase of .75 degrees C according to the instrumental tempurature record. Beginning in 1979, land tempuratures have increased twice as fast as ocean tempuratures. It has actually been thought that 1 to 2 thousand years before the period of 1860 that climate tempuratures have remained relatively stable. In consideration to the little climate optimum (it is actually called the Medieval Climate Optimum) the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has made the following statement, "current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of 'Little Ice Age' and 'Medieval Warm Period' appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries."(http://www.grida.no...) The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has also said, "idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect...records that do exist show that there was no multi-century periods when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in the 20th century."(http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov...) It seems that the other considerations you made about this period, such as "Winters were shorter, and less harsh. Populations grew, because there was less starvation and disease. The spread of many deadly diseases were slowed, because many were not huddled in shelters for warmth." are simply spurious. you also said, "And many studies show that, as far fetched as it may seem, CO2 levels were higher during the Little Climate Optimum than they are now. With or without that fact, there plants use CO2 as a fertilizer. To prove this, the purpose of greenhouses is to increase the levels of CO2 for the plant's benefit." As beneficial as climate change may be to plants, it would be simply horrible to human beings. It is not the warming of the planet that is dangerous, however, it is the effect it has on arctic glaciers. When temperatures increase glaciers begin to melt, thus causing a number of effects. 1.)Glacial retreat- a lack of equilibrium in which throws off glaicier climates. 2.) Arctic shrinkage- the more the glaciers melt, the more quickly they begin to melt. 3.)sea-level rise- states, countries, continents begin to disappear, simple as that. Among other things as glaciers begin to melt the proportion of salt and fresh water that maintains stable weather patterns will be out of equilibrium. This could result in increased flooding and precipitation, droughts, and the frequency and intensity of other various weather patterns (hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. etc.). "Other studies show that the temperature started to go up in the 40's, long before man put much CO2 into the atmosphere." The industrial revolution began in the 18th and 19th centuries...as I stated before climates started to rise around 1860. We live in a country where we operate on a basis of risk management. Let's think of some examples, War with vietname ($600 billion)(http://www.antiwar.com...)-THOUGHT communism would take over the world. War with Iraq ($204 billion)(http://www.antiwar.com...)-THOUGHT they had nuclear weapons so we attacked first (or something) Developement of the Atom Bomb(billions of trillions if you consider the arms race that it began)- THOUGHT hitler was going to make one first. Why is it that in most instances the Unites States takes pre-emptive action on the grounds of PREVENTION? Because if we can stop it before it starts than we won't find ourselves in a place where its just too late to do anything. Thus your claim is that we should not act quickly. I believe we should...wether its happening or not. Climate Change has the potential of ending the world. With that being said, let's weigh our options... Do nothing, nothing happens- Everyone is happy. Do nothing, something happens- Everyone is dead, essentially. There are droughts, economic turmoil, hurricanes, floods, etc. etc. Imagine your worst nightmare. Do something, nothing happens- Economy takes a hit, but its repairable. In comparison to doing nothing and something happening, I think its a pretty comfortable sacrafice to make. Do something, something happens- Everyone is happy. Considering these options, and that we've spent billions on other potential threats in the past...then why not this one?