In many parts of the country the difference in average temperature predicted by global warming zealots is less than the difference in average temperature you find if you drive a few miles in your car.
In many parts of New England, the yearly average temperature increases over distances less than 20 miles due to the proximity to the ocean, or local terrain.
And all of us should be less concerned about warming than cooling. Global cooling leads to ice ages, and that is a much greater problem for humanity.
I am glad the gist of my thoughts made it through. My biggest problem is limiting the size of my posts on this. So many of the claims made by true believers contradict the predicted outcome from the fundamentals of the “theory”.
The weather is driven by imbalances in the atmosphere in temperature, humidity and air pressure driven by uneven heating by the sun over water and land and during day and night. A “theory” that predicts nighttime temperatures that are closer and closer to daytime temperatures should result in less imbalance and ultimately less extreme weather patterns... not more extreme. And that is just one of many contradictions.
And as you said if it were really getting significantly warmer, that has many more benefits than if it were getting significantly cooler. The previous popular theory of “global cooling” caused by pollution preventing the sun's rays from warming the earth's surface had much greater credibility. This is because it has been observed that after large volcanic eruptions there has been credible data that showed a cooling trend in many places that lasted for a statistically significant period of time.
What similar evidence do we have for the theory of man-made global warming? Very little, and nothing outside of natural variability. There is ample evidence that it was significantly warmer during the time of the Roman empire, and that places like Iceland and Greenland once were warm enough to support the crops of early settlers. During that time period CO2 levels were lower than they are today. And during many ice age periods of time, it is known from geological evidence that CO2 levels were much higher than they are today. This evidence alone should be enough to make even the most ardent supporters of the “theory” to take pause.
But as any astute observer realizes this is not an argument based on facts, evidence and reasoning. This is an argument made with emotion, fear, consensus, and politics. It is not surprising to me that the left is resorting to name calling and even violence to try and win their argument for what is actually meant to result in global redistribution of wealth and has nothing to do with the climate.