One of the most irritating things about the debate surrounding climate change is that people don't actually look at the evidence beinf presented. Instead, they use whatever evidence is presented as simply a bolstering for their own pre-extant prejudices. Any evidence of the effect of climate change is used to support the argument that we must do more and more quickly. Any evidence of not much happening is taken to prove that we need do nothing: this is a pox on most houses argument, yes. Too few people are actually reasoning from the evidence to what ought to be done. Take this for example, from The Observer:
The last assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) put a modest figure of one to three feet as the likely rise in sea levels that will be experienced this century. The disintegration of the entire West Antarctic ice shelf changes that forecast drastically. A figure of more than 10 feet is now a more likely option. Vast tracts of heavily populated coastline around the world face inundation. Millions are likely to lose their homes. It may take more than a century for this devastation to occur. Nevertheless, it now looks to be inevitable, says Rignot. Nor will the residents of low-lying regions such as Bangladesh or Florida be surprised at this forecast. They are already experiencing the consequences of rising sea levels triggered by melting icecaps.
The actual report said that the melting of those West Antarctica glaciers is now inevitable and will lead, over time, to a rise of four feet in sea level. whether it's true or not we have to take on trust: but how can you take that evidence, of four feet plus one or three and make a risen of 10 foot this century? Especially when the West Antarctica figures are not for "maybe take more han a century" but "will take some centuries at a minimum" but are now inevitable?
There's nothing at all wrong with campaigning to avert a perceived danger. Whether that danger is the costs that climate change might bring or the costs that will be incurred by trying to deal with it. But wouldn't it be nioce if everyone really did use the evidence with which they're presented as a useful starting point for logical thought rather than simply a prop for whatever prejudice they might already have?