Perhaps you think you know all you need to know about a simple thing like the global climate but not everyone believes the same way. Some of us require a lot more information before we decide to dismantle Western industrial civilization in order to maybe, possibly, postponing 1 degree of warming before the year 2100.
"Western industrial civilization" is hardly more than 250 years old.
We don't want to "dismantle" it. We'd prefer to transform it.
Even if "western industrial civilization" survives or "weathers" climate effects of burning fossil fuel, a major component of fossil fuel is going to run out, and there are enough serious scientists whose estimates predict the shortages to occur in mere decades, or before advent of the next century.
I stumbled across the prediction for next week's storm in a thread linked in the Daily Kos newsletter. I always attempt to cross-verify stories I hear from either side of the political spectrum, and I was curious enough to run a web-search. Somehow, it didn't turn up anything immediately, but now the OP offers me something to confirm the Kos article.
Somebody here, or possibly somebody in my local conservative propaganda rag of "liberal media" in a letter to the editor, argued that he'll accept climate change as a reality when the UK has become a desert, without fog or rain. In other words, wait until the damage is done to confirm the science.
Desert? No desert there. Only flooding in Scotland never seen before.
This is like Bush expounding his "free market principles" to disparage regulation. He had said that action taken against monopolies or concentrated industries could only be justified after people get hurt.
Meanwhile the massive plume of methane leaking out of Porter Ranch continues, and it is going to take many months before it can be stopped.
I can't change any of this; I have to drive an automobile here and there to go about my modest life. So I'm laughing hysterically. "Y'all just a bunch of brainless one-celled animals pursuing your daily objectives and incapable of collective action. Just another failed blip in the rise and fall of one species or another."
AN APPENDED AFTERTHOUGHT: Bart couches a thought in language that I see all the time: "Not everyone
believes the same way . . . "
I see that all the skeptics with their "beliefs" are seldom knowledgeable in climatology, meteorology, oceanography, photo-chemistry, physics or much anything else related. And if you look at human understanding, there is a spectrum that ranges from "knowing" in the scientific or factual sense, logically deducing using the same tools, "suspecting" because you see phenomena and you suspect a causative basis, and "believing" as you pursue your religion. Of course, your run-of-the-mill catechism includes a question about "Why are we here?" with the answer "to know, love, and serve God." But that isn't "knowing" in the realm of scientific inquiry.