Again, it's those ridiculous claims that are making sceptics reject everything.
You seriously talk about the risk of Southern Bangladesh or the pacific island of Tuvalu getting flooded in 50 to 80 years from now (I suppose you've never heard about flood control), while you are ridiculing people who are upset about the millions of victims to crime commited right now by foreigners from the third world. That's absurd.
That's complete moral corruption.
I'm not ridiculing concerns about terrorism. They are legitimate concerns. I don't agree with the overblown "ban all Muslims/Islam is evil/blah-blah poison M&Ms blah-blah" reactions from Trump and the New Know-nothings, but neither do I think there shouldn't be any vetting or background checks of any kind. I'm highlighting the hypocrisy here. Terrorism and global warming are both serious threats, but conservatives ignore the latter because it poses an existential threat to their worldview even though the cost could be staggering in terms of both money lost and general human misery. Meanwhile, they take the former as such a massively dire threat to the point where they just think that even though it's statistically unlikely that any given Muslim is a dangerous radical, it's prudent to assume every single one of them is potentially that dangerous and therefore they must be denied entry into the country if they are an immigrant or refugee, or kept under tight surveillance if they are citizens or legal residents. The fundamental asymmetry in their reactions is amazing. An entire religion of over a billion people is assumed to be an enemy even though violent radicals are only a tiny percentage of them, while the clear potential of catastrophic warming is ignored or even dismissed as a fabrication from fear-mongering leftists.
I'm guessing people react differently towards terrorism because it's a more immediate threat from an external source we can put a face on. Global warming is to most people this more nebulous, far-off threat, and we don't like the implication that it's our fault and that we might have to change our ways to fix it. A crazy gunman shooting up a nightclub is scary, and because humans tend to "other" people not like us, especially if they subscribe to xenophobic or nativist viewpoints, that scariness is amplified if the killer happens to be "not like us" (the Dylan Roofs, Anders Breiviks, and Timothy McVeighs of the world are considered just "lone wolves" because they're nominally part of the in-group, but if a member of an out-group commits a heinous crime...). Meanwhile, low-lying coastal areas and islands getting slowly swallowed by the sea just doesn't elicit that same immediate, visceral fear. But a threat is a threat. You still buckle your seatbelt when you get in a car, because even though it's statistically unlikely that any given trip will result in a crash. You still buy insurance for your house even though it's statistically unlikely that you'll ever get burglarized or have a fire or other catastrophe destroy your home. But some of us don't apply "take precautions in case shit happens" to things that just don't feel immediate, primal, and in-your-face like getting turned into chunky salsa in a car crash or losing your home to a fire or getting shot by some lunatic. Those longer-term background threats we just gloss over or even dismiss as hoaxes perpetrated by our political opponents.
And if you want to talk moral corruption, it is morally bankrupt to ignore warnings from scientists because we don't want to do anything that might inconvenience us or make us change our lives in the slightest, then turn around and tell millions of people to "just adapt" in the face of potentially losing their homes or even their entire country. But I guess I shouldn't expect anything less from the "I got mine, Jack, and the devil take the hindmost!" social Darwinists on the right. It wouldn't be the first time people recklessly despoiled the environment for short-term gain without thinking of the longer-term social costs. The political debate (and the debate is purely political; there is no more debate among scientists as to the existence and primary cause of global warming) is just a repeat of the "battles" over tobacco, leaded gasoline, and ozone-depleting chemicals, just far larger in scale than those.
Also, Protip: You don't get to outright reject science just because you don't like what you hear some people say. Richard Dawkins may be an obnoxious, militant, misanthropic, condescending, insensitive, intolerant asshole who deserves to be treated like a social outcast for acting the way he does, but that doesn't mean the theory of evolution is false. Likewise, global warming is real regardless of what you think of Al Gore or whoever.