you'd appreciate how confident we are that this is man made.
I could buy that argument, but what can we do about the extreme pollution being caused in SE Asia by dictatorial regimes? We barely scratch the surface when it comes to pollution coming from China and India. Everyone loses their shit when and negative action is taken towards China, taking action to get them to reduce emissions will be very painful
Get your logic straight - it makes no sense to bring up problems concerning global coordination to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as though they are some sort of condition on your acceptance of the fundamental science.
Your assessment of the cause of the problem should be independent of your analysis of the solutions. If you don't agree with this I think you're a fundamentally dishonest person.
As for blaming poor brown countries: Taking strong action for them may mean people starving and rioting (note Equador recently): real societal pain. It's laughable to expect that of them before richer nations have really made strong commitments, commitments that don't necessitate severe social hardship. Once wealthy countries get their shit together, they can pressure/encourage the others to tow the line as a united front.
As for blaming poor brown countries
I'm sorry, it's just the entire "plastic in the ocean" is their doing. 90% or more of all plastic in the ocean comes from Asian and African rivers. We can't have straws here in california, but we barely rank in the actual pollution by pound in the ocean. I'm all for more biodegradable plastics to be used in single use items, but just the US, or the entire west, is not in any means the major culprit here
I think if you bothered to read more about the science from reputable sources, you'd appreciate how confident we are that this is man made. But again, if you read my last comment, the sane thing is not to wait until we're 100% sure that we've doomed ourselves, it's to make sure that we're safe, and we're decades past that already. Structures are built to be safe under the vast majority of operating conditions, you wouldn't argue to continue using a bridge with the assurance that the best engineers are confident that it's going to collapse soon, but they can't yet be absolutely certain. Why would you take that insane stance for the world's climate?
No need to apologize as I can take much harsher language, and sometimes it's nice to speak plainly.