25 Points of Climate Change

1)  The prevailing view or consensus on climate change within the worldwide scientific community is that our climate is warming.


2)  Humans are seen as the principle cause of climate warming, primarily through our use of fossil fuels and our production of greenhouse gas emissions.


3) We have known since 1859 that carbon dioxide (CO2) is an important greenhouse gas, trapping heat from the Sun.


4) When atmospheric levels of CO2 were about 2 parts per 10,000, much of the planet was covered with ice. When it rose to about 3 parts per 10,000, the world’s glaciers melted to their current level. Thanks to our greenhouse gas emissions, we have increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere to over 4 parts per 10,000 (over 400 parts per million), which is radically increasing the temperature of the planet and causing glacial ice to melt and raising seal levels.


5)  Remaining on our current course means continued emissions and worsening effects on our climate.


6)  Transitioning away from fossil fuels for our energy and transportation needs will reduce the severity of future warming.


7)  Five surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1991 to 2015 found a total of 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94% that human beings were primarily responsible for global climate change.


8)  No national or international scientific body rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.


9)  Scientific studies have concluded that atmospheric concentrations of heat-trapping gases such as carbon dioxide, are currently higher than they have been for the last 3 million years, when temperatures were 4°–5°F higher and sea level was 50–80 feet higher than today.


10) Our Earth is warmer right now than it has been for the last 125,000 years. According to NASA, 18 of the 19 hottest years have occurred since 2001.


11) The five hottest years ever recorded occurred in the last five years (2014-2018). The 20 hottest years on record all occurred over the last 22 years.


12) Since the Industrial Revolution began, human activity has added over a half a trillion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere.


13)  Human activity adds another 40 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere each year.


14)   The atmospheric concentration of the CO2 has risen by about 43 percent since the Industrial Revolution began.


15)  Scientists tell us the Earth has warmed over 1 degree Celsius and over 2 degrees Fahrenheit compared with the 1881-1910 baseline as a result of our production of greenhouse gas emissions and will continue to warm as we remain reliant on fossil fuels. Most of this warming has happened in the last 35 years.


16)  If we remain on our current course, our planet could warm by as much as 8 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100.


17)  As our climate warms, we are seeing increased heat waves and droughts, increased glacial melting, sea level rise, ocean acidification, stronger and more intense hurricanes, increased extreme weather events, and increased, more severe and more costly wildfires.  This is expected to worsen as we continue on our current course.


18)  Global sea level has risen by about 8 inches since 1880 as a result of warming oceans and melting glaciers. A rise of another 6 feet by 2100 is possible, depending on how quickly we transition away from fossil fuels. This would clearly be disastrous for coastal cities.  Warming oceans and sea level rise are implicated in damaging storm surges, more severe hurricanes and devastating coastal flooding. Ocean waters will continue to warm and sea level will continue to rise for many centuries regardless of what we do now, although the quicker we act, the better for our children and future generations.


19) If we continue on our current course, Redding, California will see an average increase of summer temperature from 95.14°F to 104.97°F by 2100. Redding is on its way to becoming more like La Quinta, California, which lies 600 miles south in the desert region of Southern California in the Coachella Valley. La Quinta is expected to also warm by about 10°F by 2100 and will become like modern day Kuwait City which currently suffers with an average summer temperature of 114.08°F.


20) Thanks to human-caused climate change, large wildfires in the United States burn more than twice the area they did in 1970, and the average wildfire season is 78 days longer. For each degree (Celsius) of warming in the western United States, projections show the median burned area per year will increase by as much as 600 percent in some types of forests. Research shows that as we burn fossil fuels and increase the temperature of the planet, spring is arriving much sooner, melting the winter snow, leading to hot, dry conditions that boost an increase in fire activity in some areas.


21) Not counting the Camp Fire that recently destroyed Paradise, California and killed at least 81 people, 14 of the 20 largest wildfires on record have occurred over the past 15 years. At the same time, the western US has experienced some of its warmest temperatures on record, with 10 of the past 15 years among the 15 warmest years on record.


22) Six of California’s ten most destructive wildfires on record have now struck in just the past three years. As we heat up the planet, the jet stream is slowing, which in turn increases heat waves in California and high-pressure ridges in the Pacific. These ridges deflect much-needed storms and help maintain the hot, dry climate which makes our wildfires more severe. In addition, Northern California only received an inch of rain, about 20 percent of normal this season. One study found that California’s rainy season will largely confine itself to the three months between December and February. This means a wildfire season that starts much earlier and ends much later.


23) The Carr Fire that burned over 1,000 homes in Redding, occurred during the hottest July on record and on a day that exceeded 110°F. There is a link between high temperatures and increased wind, both of which increase the severity of wildfires.


24) One study found that extreme drought and flooding will increase by at least 50 percent in this century. The increased moisture will increase growth of vegetation while the drought will dry it out, creating a massive amount of fuel for more wildfires in the future. Also, “Studies show that removing trees, either for commercial logging or as a fire-prevention strategy, can actually make fires more intense, leading to further destruction for both humans and wildlife.”


25) In 2018, the world’s leading climate scientists released a report based on over 6,000 published scientific papers warning humanity that we only have 12 years left if we hope to prevent the most severe impacts of global climate change. Studies suggest that allowing the Earth to warm beyond 1.5°C (2.7°F) “will significantly worsen the risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people.” The authors of the landmark report say “urgent and unprecedented changes are needed to reach the target,” which they say is “affordable and feasible.” If we hope to leave a livable planet to future generations, we would need to reduce our carbon pollution by 45% by 2030 (only 11 years from now) and go completely carbon-free by 2050. “This would require carbon prices that are three to four times higher than for a 2°C target. But the costs of doing nothing would be far higher.”


Douglas Craig
Doug Craig graduated from college in Ohio with a journalism degree and got married during the Carter administration. He graduated from graduate school with a doctorate in Psychology, got divorced, moved to Redding, re-married and started his private practice during the Reagan administration. He had his kids during the first Bush administration. Since then he has done nothing noteworthy besides write a little poetry, survive a motorcycle crash, buy and sell an electric car, raise his kids, manage to stay married and maintain his practice for almost 30 years. He believes in magic and is a Dawes fan.
Comment Policy: We welcome your comments, with some caveats: Please keep your comments positive and civilized. If your comment is critical, please make it constructive. If your comment is rude, we will delete it. If you are constantly negative or a general pest, troll, or hater, we will ban you from the site forever. The definition of terms is left solely up to us. Comments are disabled on articles older than 90 days. Thank you. Carry on.

22 Responses

  1. Avatar Doug Cook says:

    I could spend a few hours refuting Dr Craig’s ‘facts’ and predictions…but I will spare you all. Let’s look at a few of them, though. He produces a scary looking graph of temperature increase, however look at the scale. We have had a temperature increase of about 1.5 degrees in the last hundred years…that is a rather stable climate in Earth’s history. Sea level rise? Dr Craig correctly stated that the sea level rise is about 8 ” for the past 100 years. We have very accurate tide charts that show this. The sea level rise is about 3mm a year, it had been consistent since we have been keeping records. NOAA’s own data shows no increase in the rate if sea level rise. So how do we get the prediction of 6 feet by 2100? I Nonsense. Why the need for these catastrophic predictions that never seem to come to fruition? NOAA put out at least 3 studies that I read that showed the Ca drought was a natural cycle, not caused by AGW. Remember the ‘experts’ that predicted that Can will never again be out of drought conditions? That we will need to build desalination plants? Yeah, I’m tired if all this rain too.

    • Steven Towers Steven Towers says:

      1. Conflating recent weather and climate change is laughable—something that would deservedly earn you a “D” on a college term paper addressing this topic.

      2. Sea level changes will be among the final catastrophic effects of AGW. That’s because melting sea ice has no effect on sea level at all. Continental glaciers, while melting quickly, are a paltry percentage of Earth’s ice. It’s not until Antarctica’s and Greenland’s ice caps really start to collapse that sea levels will rise substantially. To focus on present-day sea level data is to display ignorance of these facts, or to purposefully obfuscate. I’ll go with ignorance for Mr. Cook (to distinguish him from Mr. Craig, the other Doug), and purposeful obfuscation by Mr. Cook’s sources.

      • Avatar Doug Cook says:

        1. But that is exactly what the climate alarmists do all the time, don’t they? The drought is a good example. It is the climate alarmists that bring storms are more severe (they are not) 2. So you honestly believe that sea level rise will all of a sudden leap to 6-10 ft in 80 years? After it’s been 3 mm a year for the past 160 years with no increase? Is the Earth warming? Yes, a little bit..is it caused by man? Who knows…maybe a small percent, certainly not a huge amount. There is definitely no emperical evidence of it…just hypothesis. Even Dr Craig’s oh so scary graph shows the beginning of the warming pause that is now coming up on 20 years. Antarctica is gaining I’ve, except on the Western portion where they discovered s number of underwater volcanoes. Purposely obuscate? Dr Hansen who testified to Congress in 1989, predicted that parts of Manhattan would be underwater by now. Why was he so wrong? Another gentleman that I debated climate change with swore that homes were being flooded in the Maldives because of sea level rise. (They’re not). It is these wild and false claims that make climate alarmists look silly

    • R.V. Scheide R.V. Scheide says:

      No expert that I’m aware of ever said California will never come out of drought conditions. The drought is cyclical, it comes and goes, and is a feature of our region’s climate. Often when it goes, we enjoy torrential rainfall like we’re getting right now.

      What’s changing and entirely consistent with AGW theory is the timing of the seasons. Spring is coming sooner, fall is arriving later, over the past 40-50 years. The shift is so significant, the state and fed water systems can’t keep up with it–they weren’t designed to.

      As Steve points out, it’s the land ice that’s important as far as sea level rise is concerned, and while Greenland saw some much needed thickening of its ice sheet this past year, Antarctica has become a serious area of concern.

      Finally, anyone remotely familiar with climate science, as Doug Cook obviously isn’t, knows that scientists use computer models and different scenarios to project a large number of possible outcomes. The catastrophic predictions may come to pass, or we may get a milder version, if we’re lucky and do the work required. At any rate, these predictions are in the future, and by definition haven’t come to pass yet, so they couldn’t have possibly failed.

  2. Avatar Bruce Vojtecky says:

    Like the vaccination debate, climate change debate uses disputed facts, on both sides, to make a prediction.
    While the Democrats, especially in California, complain the Republicans are responsible and that a laying on of hands to convert Republicans over to Democrat believers will cure climate change, ala Bethel’s methods, they miss some facts that even they support.
    California had the most devastating wildfire season in 2018 while right next door Arizona had less wildfires in 2018 than 2017. Arizona uses fire prevention while California uses the blame card.
    According to the American Lung Association, the top ten dirtiest air cities in the nation every year has 7 or 8 California cities listed. The top ten cleanest air cities include Arizona and Wyoming cities.
    The clear culprit in the climate change debate is California. Many reasons for this but the most glaring, one that a few people point out, is over population. California has more people than the entire country of Canada and more are coming. Whether it is climate change or The Wall or gun control the message is clear, fix your own state first.

    • Steven Towers Steven Towers says:

      “….climate change debate uses disputed facts, on both sides, to make a prediction.”

      So? This smacks of false equivalency. Flat-Earthers and the scientific community also use disputed facts on both sides. This does not mean the shape of the Earth is an open question. Our pinhead POTUS thinks that wind turbines cause cancer. That doesn’t make for a credible argument against wind power.

      Spot on regarding overpopulation being the root cause. A bit naive or disengenuous to suggest that it’s California’s fault. We are 0.005 of the world’s population. Granted, our per-capita production of CO2 is higher than average. And “fix you’re own state first” regarding global warming is what California is trying to do. The state has been strenuously opposed by the Trump

    • R.V. Scheide R.V. Scheide says:

      Arizona=Apple, California=Orange.

  3. Avatar Bruce Vojtecky says:

    Doug, I am glad you are posting your informative climate articles on ANews. Hopefully it won’t suffer the same fate as your RS blog where the cut and paste crowd, on both sides, took over the comment section.

  4. Avatar Tammy Kay says:

    Doug, thank you for explaining the science so well. The changing climate is one of the biggest threats to our entire planet and was one that deeply concerned my late husband, Richard T. Douse. He felt that many humans would not sacrifice today to make a difference for the future.

  5. Frank Treadway Frank Treadway says:

    Doug, don’t listen to the naysayers, we on planet earth are facing dire times, climate wise, that doesn’t mean we don’t keep on moving down the road, living, protesting, writing letters and making our officials uncomfortable until we see change. I see a book coming out of your research, start writing.

  6. Avatar Robert Scheide Sr. says:

    If you are a nonbeliever I suggest you take a internet tour of the artic and look at ice melt. You need no other evidence unless you are brain dead. Currently, a large chunk of glacier in the Antartica is fixing to break off which will raise sea levels 10 feet. You can see the crack yourself.

  7. Avatar James Montgomery says:

    It serves no one well to publish alarmist, overstated analyses of global warming, such as this. See Doug Cook’s opening statement, above, and include the fact that Mr. Craig completely ignores fuel build-up as a factor in massive fires. The problem is that alarmists reduce the credibility of the subject, giving the global-warming deniers fuel for their arguments.
    Global warming is real, and at least partly- probably mainly- caused by our overuse of fossil fuels. The truth is alarming enough. For good science on the subject, see the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration’s website:

    If you really want to be the hero of the world, invent an efficient, affordable electric engine that can be retro-fitted into existing vehicles.

    • R.V. Scheide R.V. Scheide says:

      It’s a proven fact that AGW is shifting seasonal climatic patterns that increase the number of predicted wildfires in models, and as we’ve discovered the past 40-50 years, in real life in the Western United States and California.

      The state has a plan for this, it’s called the Carbon Forest Plan. It’s ambitious and expensive but as I keep repeating endlessly, it means jobs, jobs, jobs in rural areas, if we can just get the rubes to stop tuning into Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck and Savage 24/7.

  8. Tom O'Mara Tom O'Mara says:

    The Toyota Prius Prime is an efficient electric engine in an existing vehicle. By driving it intelligently, our first 32 miles of every trip are all electric, coincidentally the round-trip distance to Redding from our house. Trips longer than this revert to a regular Prius gas engine. We estimate that we drove 7,000 of a total 9,000 miles all-electric in our first year. Our power source? It’s almost completely solar, as we paid a total of $144 to run our house and charge our car to PG&E for the year. What we saved in gas cost, at $3/gallon and 50 mpg, was $420. The cost of the Prius Prime with all rebates: just under $22,000. While there are other options, this seems like an affordable way to go to us,

  9. Avatar Bruce Vojtecky says:

    As I lived the last dozen years in the Upper Rockies/Midwest I saw global warming first hand, I do not need to google other areas. I lived there full time, not visited. When I first moved there long periods of minus 40 degrees with wind chill were common. Snowfall stayed on the ground and was built up in the middle of streets and parking lots.
    As time progressed the snow fall decreased at times and sometimes the temps never hit minus except occasionally. Blizzards became stronger, Polar Vortex/Snow bomb, but the temps were rising causing the snow to melt quickly, hence double flooding, immediate and then when the higher elevations melted. In Cheyenne the snow would drop double digit inches but be melted within a few days. The upper Rockies hit record snowfall with record high temperatures.
    Even now with the Snow Bomb going on my daughter sends pictures of ten foot or higher drifts and dry areas in the sun that show grass.
    There is no debate that the world is warming, the debate is whether jobs or environment are more crucial.

  10. Avatar Tim says:

    There is no such thing as clean energy. Solar panels, for instance, trap energy from the sun that would otherwise be partially reflected back into space (which, incidentally, is the real danger in the melting ice caps since snow & ice act like mirrors).

    Drastically cutting our overall energy usage is the only reasonable solution, but no one has the appetite for it. Indeed, it is rather unfair to ask developing countries not to use energy as frivolously as we did during our industrial revolution.

  11. Joanne Snyder Joanne Snyder says:

    Thanks for the research Doug. I suspect that you, like I. am still shocked by the intensity of the fire that destroyed our homes as well as over 1,000 other homes in this area. I’ve talked to seasoned fire fighters who said they had never seen fires like what Shasta and Paradise experienced. I can imagine that the increased number of tornadoes and hurricanes in the last few years have rendered survivors as shocked as we have been. Some countries are already taking steps to prepare for and lesson the effects of rising ocean levels. Take care Doug. Thank you for this article.

  12. Douglas Craig Douglas Craig says:

    As usual I am late to the party, even when it is my own party. I would have liked to have participated in the comments from Monday but I didn’t have time until now. So if anyone is still interested, here are my thoughts:

    1) To Mr. Cook who wrote,, “We have had a temperature increase of about 1.5 degrees in the last hundred years…that is a rather stable climate in Earth’s history.” In fact, according to a study published in Nature and reported at Think Progress last year, “Recent temperatures experienced across Europe and North America are unprecedented in the past 11,000 years, a new study in the journal Nature finds.”

    They wrote, “Significantly, the new study found that the average temperature of the last decade (between 2007 and 2016) exceeded the warmest centuries of the last 11,000 years by more than 0.5°F — which is much larger than century-scale changes have been over the pre-industrial era.”

    And this: “This research confirms findings from 2013 that human-caused carbon pollution has ended the stable climate that enabled the development of modern civilization, global agriculture, and a world that could sustain a vast population.” https://thinkprogress.org/carbon-pollution-has-ended-era-of-stable-climate-that-enabled-modern-civilization-fbc0e4a5e476/

    But the problem isn’t where we are. That is bad enough. It is where we are going. Climate change isn’t about a change from one state to another. It is about constant change. Constantly increasing heat over the decades to come. Read this from the Independent from 2017:

    The headline read: “Worst-case global warming predictions are the most accurate, say climate experts”

    And this below it: ‘There is a 93 per cent chance that global warming will exceed 4C by the end of this century,’ lead scientist says. 4C is 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit. We will not survive that.

    2) Regarding Sea Level Rise, one study (NASA) finds a possible 2 foot rise by 2100 https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2680/new-study-finds-sea-level-rise-accelerating/

    Scientists agree that even if we were to stop producing greenhouse gases immediately, seas would continue to rise for many centuries to come. https://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-predictions.htm

    A paper published in 2013 “found that greenhouse gases emitted today will cause sea levels to rise for several centuries. For every degree of warming, sea levels will rise by more than 2 meters (6 feet) in the next few centuries. The Earth’s temperature has already risen 0.8 degrees C over pre-industrial temperatures.”

    Two years ago USA Today reported that NOAA found a worst case scenario of 10-12 sea level rise by 2100. Does anyone think NOAA is an alarmist organization? “NOAA’s report in January included an extreme sea-level rise forecast of 10 to 12 feet of sea-level rise by 2100 around the U.S., compared to the previous estimate of about 8 feet.”

    3) Both Mr. Cook and Mr. Montgomery describes this piece as being “alarmist.” Really? Nearly one-third of my 25 points came directly from NASA, NOAA or the EPA. One fourth came from reputable news sources reporting on newly published science. The remaining links are to highly respected science-based organizations like Climate Central, Yale Climate Solutions and Union of Concerned Scientists. And all of the data here are consistent with the scientific consensus found in at least 97% of studies published over the last 3 decades.

    4) Thanks for the positive and helpful comments from Steven, RV, Bruce, Frank, Tom, Robert, Tim and Joanne.

    5) I want to extend my heart-felt condolences to Tammy for the loss of her husband, Richard Douse who was one of my heroes and and an outstanding human being who lived off the grid long before any of us knew it was possible. A great loss for our community. His wisdom will be missed.

    6) Finally, let me just extend my gratitude to Doni for publishing this piece and allowing our community to discuss what is certainly the most catastrophic challenge our species has ever faced. Drastic climate change is here to stay. It is my hope that we use our intelligence, ingenuity and science to rapidly transition away from fossil fuels before it is too late.

    • Avatar Doug Cook says:

      Come on Dr Craig…you honestly believe that in 81 years that the sea level rise will increase to what it has been for the past 150 years…about a tenth of an inch a year to 10-12 feet? Right now it is on pace to rise 8.1 inches by 2100.
      It has been 30 years since the alarm bell was sounded for AGW And predictions made on that day—and ever since—continue to be falsified in the real world. I have read your blogs frequently, and you like spouting the worst case scenarios. However, these scenarios never seem to come to fruition.

  13. Avatar Hollyn Chase says:

    Thank you Doug for your extremely well-documented article.

  14. Douglas Craig Douglas Craig says:

    My dear Mr. Cook. I appreciate having this conversation with you. You ask me what I honestly believe and I believe science as revealed in thousands of peer-reviewed studies over the last 30 years. And I believe the scientists and scientific organizations and universities and the National Academy of Sciences of every major nation on Earth. That is what I believe.

    And what I don’t believe or trust is information that is not supported by published science. And the science is remarkably clear and consistent and offers us a range of possibilities for what the future will look like. If we continue to burn fossil fuels at the current rate for the rest of this century. You seem to trust NOAA. I do too. So let us accept NOAA’s view as I listed in my ninth point.


    “In fact, the last time the atmospheric CO2 amounts were this high was more than 3 million years ago, when temperature was 2°–3°C (3.6°–5.4°F) higher than during the pre-industrial era, and sea level was 15–25 meters (50–80 feet) higher than today.

    “Carbon dioxide concentrations are rising mostly because of the fossil fuels that people are burning for energy. Fossil fuels like coal and oil contain carbon that plants pulled out of the atmosphere through photosynthesis over the span of many millions of years; we are returning that carbon to the atmosphere in just a few hundred years.”

    We are accomplishing in a matter of decades what took thousands to million years in previous eras. I don’t think we need to quibble over how much worse it will get. We know it is bad now and we know that it will get steadily worse. That should be enough reason to act.

    That same article states, “The annual rate of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past 60 years is about 100 times faster than previous natural increases, such as those that occurred at the end of the last ice age 11,000-17,000 years ago.” This alone should alarm all of us.

    This article concludes with this startling fact: “If global energy demand continues to grow and to be met mostly with fossil fuels, atmospheric carbon dioxide will likely exceed 900 ppm by the end of this century.”

    According to the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies (https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-the-world-passed-a-carbon-threshold-400ppm-and-why-it-matters), “At the current rate of growth in CO2, levels will hit 500 ppm within 50 years, putting us on track to reach temperature boosts of perhaps more than 3 degrees C (5.4°F) — a level that climate scientists say would cause bouts of extreme weather and sea level rise that would endanger global food supplies, cause disruptive mass migrations, and even destroy the Amazon rainforest through drought and fire.”

    If we care about our species, our children and future generations, wouldn’t it make sense to take this seriously?

    The article continues: “The last time the planet had a concentration of 300 to 400 ppm of CO2 (which is below where we are now) in the atmosphere was during the mid-Pliocene, 3 million years ago — recently enough for the planet to be not radically different than it is today. Back then, temperatures were 2 degrees C to 3 degrees C (3.6 to 5.4°F) above pre-industrial temperatures (though more than 10 degrees C hotter in the Arctic), and sea levels were at least 15-25 meters higher.”

    When I was born in 1956, the CO2 level in the atmosphere was about 315 ppm. Today it sits at 411 ppm and it is steadily rising as each of us does our part. We have to go back about 16 to 25 million years ago to find a time when there was this much CO2 in the atmosphere. We are literally conducting a massive experiment on our climate, despite the abundant evidence it will be catastrophic to human civilization.

    As this article reveals, the worlds climate scientists have laid out a range of scenarios, depending on what we do. The “most pessimistic scenario, where the population booms, technology stagnates, and emissions keep rising, the atmosphere gets to a startling 2,000 ppm by about 2250. That gives us an atmosphere last seen during the Jurassic when dinosaurs roamed, and causes an apocalyptic temperature rise of perhaps 9 degrees C (16°F).

    “In the next-most-pessimistic scenario, emissions peak around 2080 and then decline, leading to an atmosphere of about 700 ppm and probable temperature increases of more than 3 degrees C (5.6 degrees F).””

    “In the most optimistic scenario, where emissions peak now (2010-2020) and start to decline, with humans actually sucking more carbon out of the air than they produce by 2070, the atmosphere dips back down below 400 ppm somewhere between 2100 and 2200 and the temperature increase is held under 1 degrees C in the long term.” But this is not happening. Not even close.

    Even if we were to go to zero emissions today, it would take another 10,000 years for our climate to return to what it was before we started burning fossil fuels.

    If we look at NOAA projections as listed at co2.earth (https://www.co2.earth/2100-projections), we can see a business as usual scenario leaving us with over 8 degrees of warming by 2100.

    According to Climate Central (https://www.climatecentral.org/what-we-do/our-programs/sea-level-rise), “…scientists expect roughly 2 to 5 more feet of sea level rise this century — a lot depending upon how much more heat-trapping pollution humanity puts into the sky.”

    And in fact, we are experiencing more flooding thanks to human-caused climate change. (https://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/climate-change-increasing-frequency-of-coastal-flooding)

    “Climate change has already increased the frequency of coastal flooding, including floods just from tides. From 2005 to 2015, the median annual number of flood days more than doubled along the stretch of coast from Florida to North Carolina. This flooding will become even more common in the near future since the amount of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere today will increase sea levels for years to come.”

    I don’t expect any of this to convince you. And I respect you and your views, even if I disagree. But I am hoping and praying that the majority of humanity decides to trust what the science is telling us and we are able to make the radical shift needed to “preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted” as James Hansen once said (http://400.350.org/).