Interglacial + status-anxiety + magical-thinking = warmism, anti-porn cursades, anti-smoking, militant veganism, 55mph speed limits, gun-control, temperance and prohibition . . .
I was going to write a more fulsome explanation but but, having done it several times already on this now hoary thread, I decided this shortened version will suffice. History shows that True Believers gotta' believe. Automobile-safety cursaders absolutely believed that the 55mph speed limit would reduce "carnage on our highways" when, in fact, deaths per 100k had been declining for decades. Still, the discourse continues to be fun.
You guys keep arguing against a hypothetical "true believer" who is not present in this thread, and seems mostly to be present in your own mind. I've only come to the following conclusions about climate change:
1) The climate has been warming over the course of the 20th and 21st century. You guys can't seem to decide whether this is true and a natural phenomenon or whether the data indicating it to be the case has been doctored. I've known enough scientists and read enough research to conclude the chance of a mass conspiracy on this front is effectively nil.
2) This warming is correlated with carbon emissions, but the exact causal relationship (or lack thereof) is difficult to determine. The scientific method has a difficult time with causality. This issue has been discussed since the 18th century enlightenment thinkers.
3) Whatever conclusions one draws about item 2 above, it's probably a good idea to move away from fossil fuels because a) there alternative energy sources that are technically superior due to better distribution or higher energy density, and b) reduced air pollution/smog independent from climate risk.
Like any conclusions about scientific fact, these are all subject to change if the weight of evidence indicates that the prior conclusions were flawed for whatever reason.
There are politicians and other public voices who are urging drastic action in response to climate change, but those are policy prescriptions, not scientific conclusions. Such prescriptions may or may not be related to scientific fact. Many on this thread don't like those politicians, and are wagging the dog by drawing scientific conclusions opposite from the ones the politicians claim to rely on.
Personally, whatever "solution" is primarily an engineering one. At the end of the day, 8 billion people are going to consume a lot of energy, and it has to come from somewhere. Any solution will have environmental impact, the task is generating the necessary energy while minimizing the negative externalities. No political wrangling required, but a lot of hard work and ingenuity!