[Since everything is so clear, why not tell us how exactly how much global temperature would "improve"?]

The real issue is whether we should cut CO{-2} emissions at all. The science is clear that we should, but the economics is clear that we should cut only 4 percent to 6 percent by 2020 and perhaps 15 percent by 2030. The economics is also clear that we should include a cap-and-trade program and some research-and-development spending, but none of the other policies.
...
Brent Sohngen is a professor in the Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics at Ohio State University.

YouTube - 350 Video Organizing Guide: [How to attempt to promote the greatest scientific fraud in human history]

This is Part 1/3 of the 350.org video organizing guide. In this episode, we go through an introduction to organizing, and the first two steps of the 9-step plan

The Guardian: [Here's that inane "even if" argument again]

Ann Widdecombe would disagree, though, wouldn't she? "She would totally disagree, yes," he smiles. "But even Ann Widdecombe – her objection is what she would regard as an obsession with climate change. But climate change is one symptom among many of what's wrong. You could take the 10 or so steps you need to take to deal with climate change, and even if climate change was proven to be an elaborate hoax, you'd still have to implement those steps. If climate change is deleted from the agenda tomorrow, we still have an energy efficiency problem, we still have the fact that energy security is a mounting concern, you've still got the fact that there is a growing population, and growing appetite for consumption, and dwindling resources. That's not going to change. All these issues are there, whether or not climate change exists."

So we should still treat carbon dioxide as a dangerous pollutant, even if it's a harmless trace atmospheric gas?