No, to counter people. Because that's what a discussion is.
If we weren't having a back-and-forth over an issue we disagreed with, every thread would just be "Aren't puppies adorbs?" "Gee willikers, of course!" "Shall we post images of puppies?" "We shall!"
That's an echo chamber of silliness and I have no desire to waste my time in that.
I agree. We should forget about this man made reality we've created and go back to living in caves. Climate will still change but whatever.
Short of what we assume it must have been like during extinction-level events like asteroid strikes, no. There has not.
By way of comparison, we're in the middle of an ice age; that means there's permanent icecaps at the poles. We're currently in an interglacial period, those tend to last a while and then everything freezes back up into another glacial period for tens of thousands of years. Interglacials warm up very rapidly, in geological terms, and once the cooling starts, temperatures slowly cool over the course of the glacial period, until the next interglacial spikes them back up.
Those interglacial warming spikes are only a few degrees (from the lowest global temperatures during the last glacial period to the modern era is only about 4 degrees C, averaged over the globe), and they occur across a period of thousands of years. That's lightning-fast, in geological terms. The current warming has been nearly a degree in the last century, and the rate in the latter half of that century was twice that of the first half. If you compare this to the most-recent interglacial warming, the rate of change from anthropogenic forcing is well over 100 times as fast.
That's not an answerable question, because you haven't determined what outcome you want to achieve.
If you want to prevent warming, well, the "acceptable amount" isn't just "zero", we need to aggressively sequester carbon out of the atmosphere and reduce emissions to zero. We've already passed that tipping point; if we dropped emissions to zero overnight, the warming trend will continue for centuries, possibly longer.
So it's a question of "how much do you want to spend on adaptation and how much infrastructure are you willing to abandon as unsalvageable". The more you're willing to spend to fix problems, the more you can deem "acceptable" in terms of emissions. But we're talking about trillions of dollars, globally, regardless.
- - - Updated - - -
No, it isn't. Global warming is the increasing global temperatures. Climate change is the effect of those increased temperatures on global climate patterns. They're two different but strongly related things.
This is a term I see a lot, to combat climate change. Combat. To fight against, the classic war of good vs evil. The great crusade.
You do realise we are talking about the weather here right? It's not a war, battle or fight, it's a warming of the planet. But this terminology is consistently used by the alarmists, because to get everyone on board there needs to be a bad guy. It's a small glimpse into the mindset of the left and how easily they can get themselves worked up into a frenzy.
Alternatively, you could not over-analyze word choice to draw faux-psychology conclusions.
Replace 'combat' with 'mitigate' if it bothers you so much.
That's for policymakers to decide (for reasons Endus pointed out), after they accept reality.
But to be perfectly honest, I have no desire to debate solutions with people who are still stuck on the whether or not we contribute. Because at that point it's a moot exercise: any solution will seem terrible to you because you don't actually think there's a problem that we're part of.
But if we're going to make ultimatums here, then I have one too: present scientific rebuttals if you're so confident of your position.
- - - Updated - - -
I don't know how to say this in any way that isn't rude, so I'm just going to say it.
You simply don't understand enough to even know that your question is unanswerable without more conditions. I get it, people don't like to know that some questions don't have answers or that questions themselves can be wrong. This is an example of a wrong question, because it's missing too many parts.
I certainly don't try very hard. Things that are relatively easy to do, sure. We don't throw shit out that can plausibly be reused, carry bags to the grocery store, recycle, etc., but I don't have any delusion that these things make much difference even in the scheme of how much ecological impact I personally have. My wife and I only have one car and only drive ~5K miles/year when at home (lots of walking and biking, live in a city center), but I fly a lot for work and drive places when I land. I'm not going to rearrange life to avoid flying when this makes no noticeable difference without sufficient worldwide cooperation.
More to the point, very minor policy changes matter a lot more than personal habits do. I'd heartily endorse replacing coal plants with alternative energies wherever feasible.
Try re-reading my post. Because it isn't. You aren't asking for something that you can be given an answer to, because you haven't provided enough information for anyone to understand what answer you're looking for.
It's a question like "How much fruit?" or "Where should we go?" Without context to explain what those questions are looking for, they're meaningless. As yours was. As I already explained. By providing example context and then answering it.