>That being said, the computer models predicting what the consequences of global warming will be, have greatly over estimated (at least the timeline of) real wo

>That being said, the computer models predicting what the consequences of global warming will be, have greatly over estimated (at least the timeline of) real world impacts. Eh? Models have consistently underestimated the timeline. What exactly random individual articles in the bait-crazy science-ignorant general media may exclaim isn't particularly relevant to the actual state of the science. I mean, you don't read about computer science or bio or whatever stories there, see them get something hilariously wrong, then immediately flip to the next page and take their expertise on some other technical subject as gospel do you? The IPCC reports have been very conservative and used significant error bars. They've even consistently indulged in the fiction that somehow the world would come together and suddenly deal with emissions rather then just letting it run. Interest backed media constantly have played down any possible consequences or flat out asserted it'd be a net positive, that there'd be lots of new farmland say. The old lie of "back in the 70s they said we'd see a new ice age!!" still gets trotted out. The picture you paint seems the pretty much the polar opposite of the media reality over the last few decades.