Okay, perhaps you are seeing predictions that number X will increase by Y by year Z actually come true. I'm talking about the predictions that the Sacramento valley will flood, as I mentioned upthread, and various other doom-and-gloom predictions that clearly haven't come to be.
> You literally have mental health problems emerging in related fields, like PTSD.
The anti-vax movement shows us the danger of correlating things like global warming and PTSD. Do you have more evidence of causation than those people do?
Anyway, I'll ask again. Can you give an environmentalist argument that doesn't involve warming scares? I challenge you. One wouldn't think this would be that difficult.
"I'm talking about the predictions that the Sacramento valley will flood, as I mentioned upthread, and various other doom-and-gloom predictions that clearly haven't come to be."
What prediction? Who said this? When? You're entire reference upthread for this is "I saw a map back in the 80s". Without knowing who drew that map and why, we can't really know what to make of it, can we? For all we know it was made as a satire of global warming predictions, or was designed by a fringe group with limited understanding of the subject matter, or you're making it up to make a point. Unless you can find an example of actual scientists (and not just one, but a group of them) predicting inundation of the Sacramento valley then you have no case for claiming 'alarmism' in that regard.
And besides that, even if alarmism were an issue, that doesn't mean that there isn't a serious issue underlying it. You need to look at what the actual science predicts, not just the people who glom on to climate change as a cause célèbre, and you need to match those predictions to the outcome. The outcome of that comparison might surprise you.
For an analogy, if Bob told you that eating a single milligram of arsenic were to instantly kill you, he would be wrong and would be exaggerating its real effects, but that would not mean that arsenic is somehow not poisonous or that you can ignore its poisonous effects. People can and do die of arsenic poisoning.
you're getting confused by sensationalist reporting overblowing the short-term impact of our climate catastrophe.
the scientific predictions were always pretty conservative and the only thing they were off about was the time... as they alway thought we'd take longer to get to where we are now.
But yeah, you won't see the effect in your day-to-day life as an american nor european until its way too late to do anything anymore. but hey, most of us will experience it in a few years, so stay tuned until after 2050 i guess. though i'd wager we'll still discuss if we have impacted earth at that point. there is just too much money to make in denying it.
> You literally have mental health problems emerging in related fields, like PTSD.
The anti-vax movement shows us the danger of correlating things like global warming and PTSD. Do you have more evidence of causation than those people do?
Anyway, I'll ask again. Can you give an environmentalist argument that doesn't involve warming scares? I challenge you. One wouldn't think this would be that difficult.