Questions About Global Warming

I've never run into a subject that accepts more things as a given before jumping into solving a problem. I always consider discussions on Global Warming to have a specific attempt at answering one of the several questions in the following chain. The key is understanding that each question depends on the answer before it and many people are arguing so far down the list without the foundation that arguments often collapse.

1) What is the expected climate variation and how is the current trend "unexpected"?
2) Which direction is the trend moving and how strong is that direction?
3) What is causing the unexpected variance in climate trending?

Then we move onto the areas that begin to have less to do with science and more to do with values:

4) Is this trending good or bad for humanity?
5) If the trend is bad, what could we do to stop it? (hint: how good is your answer to question 3?) 6) What is the best course of action given we believe the trend is bad, we know what is causing it, we know what factors go into stopping it, and we understand net effect has to be positive for humanity.

Right now the discussion is in your legislators hands at basically question 5. Unfortunately almost everything before it is almost ignored or taken as a given and new research isn't really important unless it clearly agrees with the given that the climate is warming and it is bad for humans. In addition, the clarity about what is actually causing it makes for potentially wasteful legislation. For example, should we really be targeting CO2 or should we be looking at something else even if you accept climate change is happening and warming is bad for humans.

Government of course doesn't usually consider the last question in almost any attempt to provide a solution. The very specific goal is set, the litmus test of whether that specific goal would be reached is voted on, and the result steams forward. In this case, the specific goal is lowering CO2 and I have faith some kind of legislation could very well do that. Would it actually work? Would it have a net good for humanity? Because nobody is considering the full line of reasoning my guess would be the answer to both of those questions is no.

I certainly could come to accept Global Warming given the data, research, logic, and reason pointing us in that direction. I'm just waiting for someone to see that happen and the more I see scientists and the media approach it as a given the less I am prone to have faith.