Your argument is: - Contradicting almost all of current science on the topic, without even a cursory attempt to make an argument for such a vast conspiracy -

Your argument is: - Contradicting almost all of current science on the topic, without even a cursory attempt to make an argument for such a vast conspiracy - Extrapolating from a grand total of one example (Malthus), without explaining why that should be relevant 200 years later. You could just as easily point to predictions of doom before each world war, and marvel how accurately those came true. - Engaging in the good ol' it-is-therefore-it-ought fallacy: just stating that we survived the little ice age does not negate the suffering it caused. "Widespread crop failure, famine, and mass death" certainly don't sound like something I'd want to risk just to avoid the minimal changes in lifestyle this article lists. - Using references that actually contradict it: Did you read your wikipedia link on "Global Cooling"? It does an excellent job of showing that the idea was simply one possibility arising from the nascent realisation that humans affect climate. The uncertainty was communicated in the relevant documents, and this period of competing possibilities only lasted around eight years, far less than the current consensus. - Drawing distinctions without a difference: At this point, adaptation and prevention have started to merge. Is eating less meat intended to lower methane levels and energy usage, or trying to prevent erosion and deforestation? The former are preventative, the latter both preventative as well as adaptive. - ...going complete off the deep in the end. As in "How many kids, vacations, cars, etc are created because BBC exists?", a sentence that makes me understand how my dog feels when they tilt their head just so, and look at me with their big, questioning eyes.