Co2 levels : What is the enviromental damage of a higher CO2 level
Increases in global ambient temperature through the well understood greenhouse effect.
Average temperatures : There have been many temperature shifts in time. What does a rise in temperature actual mean. In the 50er years there where also scientists who said there was going to be an icetime. Another thing is that the temperature of mars has also been measured form out the 70s. Mars seems to have globally desame temperature rising as on earth.
Average temperatures usually change extremely slowly, and even then have dramatic effects on the planet. A hotter planet means more extreme weather (to put it simply there's more energy in the system). Places that were once wet become dry, and vice versa. Which means floods and droughts. Many plant and animal species, already on the brink of extinction, could be pushed to the extinction. This would decrease the global biodiversity. Most of humanity is surviving on the brink of death themselves. Consider the
little ice age which had profound effects on Europe. A hotter planet means a wetter tropic and a drier temperate zone.
On the other hand, a warming planet could have profound positive effects as well. Changes to global temperature could make the planet
more hospitable to human life. For example extending growing seasons in various agricultural areas, or opening up arable land in the subarctic. The problem is that the effects and magnitudes are way beyond our ability to properly predict or control. It's like rolling the dice with billions of lives.
Also, while the evidence is irrefutable that humans are warming the planet, we don't know how much of the observed warming is human influenced. It's possible that the sun is going through a period of increased activity, which in theory could be causing the vast majority of the obsesrved warming. The little ice age is believed to have been caused by the reverse: a solar cooldown. So not only are the effects indeterminable, but we might not even have the ability to stop or reverse it.
percent forest land converted to mono-specie human crops: your point is. There is a bigger chance of crop-deseases if that is what you mean. But I gues the farmers are taking that into account.
Monocrops are huge profit makers in the short term. But most species are not hardy at all. They're grown for their ability to produce money, not survive. They grow on a razor thin margin that can easily be upset. Witness the Irish potato famine.
What is the enviromental loss on big scale on the world when destroying the rain forest. I know the animals that use to live there aren't very happy.
A loss of biodiversity and soil quality. That land doesn't suddenly become farmland. After a few years it becomes unarable, and is left fallow. Left unchecked, eventually the entire amazon basin could look like the sahara.
PCB and lead : PCB is forbidden and lead forbidden or allowed in low concentrations. New products of today are thoughrough checked before letting them use.
Forbidden or not, they've had and are having strong effects on the environment. Consider your computer monitor. It has roughly a pound of lead in it, if I remember correctly. All sorts of volatile and toxic chemicals exist in all sorts of household products. And they're routinely disposed of improperly.
oceanic fish sizes and fishery depletions : As far I know there are in the Netherlands strict regulations about fishery. In the rest of Europe there are also regulations about fishery(altrough less regulated). My gues that desame is in america and the rest of the world, atleast the ones with big fisherships.
Those requlations go against the natural tendancy of the fishing industries, and are largely a consequence of the environmental movement in the 60s and 70s. When environmentalism goes out of vogue, so will those regulations.
Number of endangered or extinct species world wide : Well, true there are many endangered species. That probably mostly becouse their habitat is taken over by humans and the increasing of the habitat of other species created by human, I don't see a way to stop humans from growing further and decreasing their habitat and the increasing of the habitat of other species. There are much species that are endangered.
Actually, human growth does seem to have a natural sense of carrying capacity, at least in industrialized areas with ample supply of birth control and a social acceptance. Europe's birth rate, I believe, is in strong decline. Apparently economic pressures might actually be sufficient to limit human growth, when birth control allows parents to choose to conceive or not. But it remains to be seen if this birth rate decline is just a short term fad or a long term trend, and wether this self-limiting growth is universal to humanity or a side-effect of the rather liberal European culture.
So is that really bad, is it. We could put them in zoo's.
Like we did with the
Tasmanian tiger? Zoos are only barely beginning to reach a break even point with animal breeding. It wasn't all that long ago that most zoo specimens were hunted from the wild. Go to your local zoo and find out how many of the animals were born in captivity. I'll bet you anything that it's in the far minority. Plus, populations need a large gene pool to remain stable. Zoos have to spend a lot of money to get breeding pairs together. It's just not economically viable as a long term solution. Zoos are not the way to ensure long term species survival.
Coral reef destruction : True, there is much coral reef destruction. On the other side, there are (mostly for tourism) projects set up to recreate the coral reef at some places.
Proper coral reefs are centuries in the making. It might be possible to create faux coral reefs, but I doubt they'll be effective on a large, hundreds of miles scale.
But yes, I am pretty sceptic about global warming.
Sounds to me like your skepticism is confused. Ask yourself these five questions:
1. Is global warming hapening?
2. Is it humanity's fault
3. Can humanity fix it
4. Should humanity fix it (that is, is global warming a net positive for humanity?)
5. Do other co-inhabitors of our planet have a right to existance (that is, do Polar Bears deserve to live?)
A lot of your reasoning seems to give conflicting answers for these three questions. My answers: 1. Yes. 2. Probably, though it could be the sun, too. 3. Probably, by drastically cutting emissions down to zero, the planet could recover in a century or so. But until it's economically driven, it won't happen. 4. Probably, but there is a chance that a warmer planet would increase the carrying capacity for humanity. But I wouldn't bet on it. 5. Yes, absolutely.