>But I am very hesitant to accept broad doomsday predictions by climate scientists which involve a mix of economics, society, politics, etc. My assumption is t

>But I am very hesitant to accept broad doomsday predictions by climate scientists which involve a mix of economics, society, politics, etc. My assumption is that climate scientists actually see the most extreme examples of changes to environments that are most sensitive to it, and this (to some degree) exaggerates their extrapolation of the effects to the rest of the world. This tends towards alarmism in the same way that computer security experts see the internet as one giant mass of exploitable holes teetering on the edge of catastrophic collapse. Watch the documentary Chasing Ice. If "climate effects on glaciers" is your niche expertise, the future looks very short. I mentally dial the doomsday predictions back a bit to factor in "the rest of the world", and it still looks pretty bleak to me. Additionally, I factor in the qualifications and 'source of income' of those arguing against it. There are a lot of radio and TV personalities who are vehemently opposed to "what science has to say", accusing climate scientists of the self-justification of their chosen career. I find that to be one of the most pristine examples of hypocrisy in existence. It's also inescapable.