"the claim that it will stop Global Warming,"

Is anyone actually saying that?   What I'm hearing is people saying is that not reducing carbon emissions it is likely to make it worse, and at most hoping against hope that if we can cut down the consequences might not be as bad as currently predicted and feared. And I find the evidence for the first part of that totally convincing.

I think it's not justifiable to assume that cutting carbon emission is supposed to make it harder to deal with the predicted effects of global warming. Rebuilding cities inland and easing the process by which millions of people will be moving away away from areas and whole countries that will be flooded need not be carbon intensive operations.

Insofar as these kind of activities might in fact be carbon intensive, it seems pretty self evident that this would be another argument for reducing carbon emissions on other far less urgent aspects of human activity.

As I said earlier, when you're in a hole, you stop digging, even if the hole was there before you fell into it.