While I acknowledge that
climate change (more on my reason for that emphasis later) exists and is at least in part driven by human action, I'm not buying into hysteria.
Firstly, I don't like the term global warming. It conveys about half the story.
Average temperatures may rise in many parts of the planet, but they may cool or remain stagnant in many others. This is a very complex phenomenon, the implications of which we do not entirely understand yet. Simply saying "its gon' get hot!" is inadequate, and that is what the term "global warming" implies.
One dynamic that I find is very rarely mentioned in the media is the
potential disruption of thermohaline circulation. You can read that wiki for full details, but to keep it short: disrupt ocean currents due to cryosphere melting, create cooling in large parts of northern hemisphere, see ice masses rejuvenate themselves again and sea levels potentially decline in some parts of the world, etc.
Again, there's a lot that could go on here (that is merely one plausible theory), and it is not as simple as implying that it will get hot. Warming can beget cooling, and vice versa.
And that's the second thing-uncertainty. There is a lot we do not know about the climate (ex: how exactly do clouds impact cryosphere melting, exactly how much warming do humans contribute,
how exactly will the effect vary in different regions, etc, etc-our best models are very imperfect).
This does not mean that nothing can or should be done-we can agree that humanity is contributing to the issue to some extent, and that whatever extent this is should be reduced.
But this does mean that forceful, concrete conclusions about the results and the associated hysteria are not necessarily called for. There will be serious challenges, but humanity is not going to go down the drain at the behest of this phenomenon.
