I find it embarrassing that people have started bending over backwards to avoid the term ‘global warming’. It’d be like referring to cancer as ‘abnormal cell growth’. One term does not evoke as strong a scary response as the other — and scared is what we need to be in order to motivate ourselves to take action.
https://goo.gl/images/wEsEKH
Another thing that irks me is how often people talk about temperature in centigrade without indicating so. Too many of us think they’re talking about degrees Fahrenheit. This halves the seriousness of the problem.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/
Now, I know that no one can predict the future; but we do know that global temperatures are increasing and will continue to do so as long as greenhouse gas levels keep rising.
Ice sheets, permafrost and methane hydrate will continue to melt even if mankind suddenly and completely stopped releasing CO2 into the air. So, in conjunction with rising sea levels and more unfavorable climate change events, famines, wars, disease and pestilence will also increase to the point that organized civilization will falter and perhaps cease to function.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/religion/climate-change-schism-evangelical-christians-divided-human-role-global-warming-n865081
Here, in the USA, we don’t see the most dramatic effects of global warming. But other geographic regions do, and they’re scared shitless — and rightfully so.
“Public climate debates leave out almost entirely a third part of the debate, namely, a very substantial number of scientists, competent scientists, who think that the scientific consensus is much too optimistic. A group of scientists at MIT came out with a report about a year ago describing what they called the most comprehensive modelling of the climate that had ever been done. Their conclusion, which was unreported in public media as far as I know, was that the major scientific consensus of the international commission is just way off, it's much too optimistic ... their own conclusion was that unless we terminate use of fossil fuels almost immediately, it's finished. We'll never be able to overcome the consequences. That's not part of the debate.”
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-29/glikson-the-dilemma-of-a-climate-scientist/7123246
