1. No it isn't when your over exaggerating like the rest of the alarmists and it's funny how you assume that some anonymous person over the internet doesn't have a legacy ... 

2. How so ? Cars are a big part of emission and you can't get much done without them like going to school/work/etc. Expecting people to replace their gas powered cars overnight is pure folly when most of our current vehicles work and gas has never been cheaper than before ... (Say bye bye to your heating system too if you want to save the planet LOL) 

3. 5 years is not short term ... 

1. A big part of your argument was "who cares, I'll be dead!" which only really makes sense if you don't have a legacy. Do you just not give a shit about your legacy then? Also;

Storms are getting stronger

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ClimateStorms/page2.php

Droughts are getting worse

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/causes-of-drought-climate-change-connection.html#.VyrCjvkrJhE

2015 was the hottest year on record (and saw a record jump).

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/2015-shatters-warmest-year-on-record-global-temperature-noaa-nasa/54892807

Climate change is causing food shortages, and they'll get worse.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/08/climate-change-set-fuel-global-food-crisis-150814144555459.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/general-mills-warns-climate-change-will-lead-to-global-food-shortages_us_55e45e5ce4b0c818f6186305

2. Who said anything about replacing these systems overnight? Just because it won't happen over night doesn't mean we shouldn't bother. And no, you won't have to give up heating. I'd love to see your source for that.

3. 5 years is really fast in this context. That's one model cycle for a car.

Source?

Seems legit to me...

Keep an eye for those body doubles :P

1. Then it's their problem to deal with, not mine. As far as more storms go though ... 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/05/dont-believe-the-global-warmists-major-hurricanes-are-less-frequent/#4790d29b7c5c

Hurricanes are actually less frequent ...

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/tornado/clim/EF1-EF5.png

There's hardly any relationship between warming and tornadoes ... 

http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/25/paper-droughts-heat-waves-are-not-getting-worse-like-alarmists-predicted/

Droughts are not getting worse like the alarmists claimed when they don't understand that water gets conserved so it's practically redistributed ...

I would discard the claim of food shortages getting more prevalent in the future when most predictions are at least two decades away ... 

2. We shouldn't bother on the account that it would hurt a lof of us economically speaking. Throwing out a relatively new car just so you can appeal to your inner snob by purchasing an electric car to save the evironment just shows how much of a foolish they are. You pretty much have to give up your heating system since it's ultimately either powered by coal or gas ... 

3. 5 years really isn't short, that's about 5% of our lives. We really don't know if electric cars will get cheap enough either ... 

1. Oh, you actually don't give a shit about what happens after you die..alright...Anyways! Stronger and more aren't the same thing. "In 2005, he showed that Atlantic hurricanes are about 60 percent more powerful than they were in the 1970s. Storms lasted longer and their top wind speeds had increased by 25 percent. " Storms are stronger than they used to be.

Oh, and for the bold part: Duh. All water is conserved. All matter is conserved. But where it's distributed is key. If you live in a place that stops getting water, it doesn't matter if somewhere else is getting more rain.

2. Care to share a source saying that making changes to have a smaller effect on the enviornment would hurt the economy? Oh, and Americans at least, have just started holding on to their cars for a long time. It wasn't long ago that the average person replaced their car every 4 years anyways. Did you even read your source for the heating thing? First off, it talks about cooling your house, not heating it. Secondly, cooling systems only require electricity. So, just find a cleaner way to create electricity (hint: Solar power http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulrodgers/2014/09/30/the-rise-of-solar/#e9fb89f1b9ab).

3. Yes, it is. In the car world, 5 years is pretty much as short as a itteration is ever going to be. The current Ford Focus EV has an MSRP that is lower than the average price of a new car in the U.S. even before incentives.

Oh, and check your sources for gods sake.

1. James Taylor is a lawyer who works at a liberitarian think tank, not a scientist. He studied atmostpheric science while in college, but holds no degree and has to experience in any climate related field. He's no more qualified to speak on the subject in a professional sense than I am.

2. The Daily Caller article is written by a right wing website about a paper that a right wing think tank published that was authoured by an accountant who's closest relationship to climate science is a chemisty degree.

Mind you, neither of these sources would be issues if they were mearly reporting news. But they aren't. They are writting pieces that make arguments about a scientific field that they have no expertise in.

1. Just because there are stronger storms doesn't necessarily mean it will do more damage than having more storms. Where water is distributed is indeed the key but because there is more rain going elsewhere means that there's LESS droughts in that area which would mean that the number of droughts remain approximately the same, not more like you said ... 

2. I don't need a source to have a common sense that plumping down over $20000 or more is expensive for just about anyone and people replace their cars every decade now. By the time I get into the work force, I'll have a gas powered car because electric cars still won't be good enough for me ... 

Cooling or heating it doesn't matter as long as there is some form of temperature control going on. Cool, so I have to wait for a decade for solar energy to become viable ...  

3. Your getting a horrible deal with the Ford Focus EV since it has a rated 76 mile range which is just awful for long distance travel since there's hardly any electric charging stations, congratulations for discouraging me in getting an electric car in the forseeable future ...  

I don't care if their scientists or not, what I care about are their cited sources ...

1. The total number of tropical cyclones is increasing. He was mearly talking about major hurricanes (without actually providing a definition as to what that means). Between 2005 and 2014 there was an average of 15.7 storms a year large enough to be named. That is a significant increase from any recorded time before.

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/NS.jpg

That isn't how water works. If it was, there would always been the same amount of drought. What if the area that gets the extra water already gets a lot of rain? Or what if the area that gets that extra water is...an ocean?

2. How is spending $20,000 or more on an electric car worse than spending the same money on a gas powered car? Especially considering on requires you to buy gas.

The difference between cooling and heating absolutely matters. You can heat a house with any number of energy sources that are inexpensive and eco-friendly. Cooling is more difficult, and cannot be done with as wide an array of energy sources.

Nah, don't worry about it. That article is a year and a half old, and prices have actually fallen faster than they anticipated.

3. and next years model has a 100 mile range. Someone buying a car today, has a pretty good chance of buying an electric car next. Because buy the time they are ready to replace their car, EVs will likely run longer on a single charge than most gas cars do on a tank of fuel.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601091/heres-why-you-might-be-an-electric-car-owner-a-decade-from-now/

4. That is naive. Having someone try to interpret climate data with no expert knowlege of the field is like having a biologist try to interpret a legal document. We can all see raw data, but without the proper knowlege and expertise we have no way of knowing what it actually means.

The fact of the matter is that climate change is more dangerous than you think it is, and easier to do something about than you think it is.

Wow Kimmel really should have done his research before touching on climate change. He sounds so ignorant to me here.

Yes anthropogenic carbon emissions are warming the planet, and as a result crop yields are increasing and the world is generally becoming a greener, more habitable place.

We can adapt to the slowly rising sea levels and the so called 'tipping point' is just a theory at this point.

The west is decarbonising and the developing world is producing more every year. Therefore to reduce carbon emissions worldwide is to force hundreds of millions in the developing world to die unnecessarily. It would also 'brown' the world and reduce crop yields making it even harder for the poor to survive.

Killing millions out of ignorance is only slightly better than outright murdering them.

Have you any peer-reviewed scientific research to support your claims?