> Models in general haven't overpredicted warmingYes, they have. We're obviously not going to agree on this point.
> It looks like you're arguing that because something is changing over the course of several decades it's not as much as a problem.
No, I'm arguing that the problem is not new, and it's not a climate problem. It's a problem of misgovernment and has been around for quite a while. But that doesn't stop cities and countries to try to get the rest of us to pay for fixing it by trying to claim that it's a cimate problem.
> The climate is changing faster by far than it has in all human history, and probably in the history of our planet.
This is ludicrous. Nobody has the data to back this up, and there is plenty of data contradicting it.
> When you have 7 or 8 billion people living on the planet, largely in huge cities, it's far more challenging.
When the "problem" you're talking about is a degree of so of temperature rise and a foot or two of sea level rise over the course of a century, to call dealing with it "challenging" is an egregious misuse of language. This is simply not that big a deal compared to all the other things we humans have to deal with. And the things we will need to do anyway to deal with those far more challenging problems--like how to bring billions of people out of poverty and how to make our infrastructure more robust--will end up adapting us to the change anyway. If we're going to spend trillions of dollars on something, let's at least spend it on something that benefits everybody regardless of what happens with the climate, instead of on a huge CO2 mitigation boondoggle that will transfer a lot of money from your and my pockets to the pockets of politicians and "green" business executives, but won't actually help much of anything.