The evidences are not being compared by themselves but rather used to lead to the fact that "We can only do something based on what the current scientific predi

The evidences are not being compared by themselves but rather used to lead to the fact that "We can only do something based on what the current scientific prediction is." Based on the current scientific prediction the best measures that we even intend to implement, The Kyoto Protocol (for all it's economic constraints), is by far pushing the effects at most by a decade. Would it not be a good idea rather to start looking at living at higher temperatures?