[Dominic Harr]

But for me, this really speaks to the question of credibility on this kind of press 'scary story'.

I'm sorry -- I didn't mean that to come out quite so . . . rude. I don't mean it in quite that way.

I'm at work, and was typing hurriedly.

Hope you can forgive me for that.

[cogitator]

Regarding your prior posts:

You clarified, it makes sense, I'm fine with that.

If a longer-term horizon is employed for global warming, similar things can be said about the Y2K bug and global warming.

I.e.,

The problem is real.

Left unaddressed, there could be serious consequences.

Some/many of the most serious consequences are over-hyped and are not realistic scenarios.

That doesn't mean nothing should be done about it. The problem with global warming is identifying the most effective "fixes". With the Y2K bug, the cause was obvious, and the mitigation procedures could be clearly defined. Not so for climate.

I'm glad we could reach an understanding somewhere.