It's not lies, but it is happening too slow for most people to care. So we should speed up climate change to get people to take it seriously. Use more power, drive more, get this snowball rolling or rather melting faster so maybe people will start to care!

Or come live in Canada. Tons of room to migrate north as the climate changes. Go North where the future lies ;)

The problem is, so far, it has only been beneficial. Shorter winters, warmer spring and fall, longer summers, loving it!

I happen to notice that all the "things to be done" are burdening exclusively the working and middle class. You can see that this was concocted by a ruling elite and sold as woke policy towards a urban clientele that is disconnected from nature.

Here are some things to be done:

Confiscate Al Gore's $100M oil money

Confiscate Di Caprio's car collection and private jet

Cut down spending for all the international institutions like UN, WB, etc. and use that money for:

Full tax deductions for small solar installation for home owners

Full tax deductions if you buy renewable energy from a producer

The 97% consensus? That was a literal hoax by a man named Cook who pretended to have read 12K scientific papers (he lied). Only a small minority of researches actually support the "climate change is mostly (>50%) caused by anthropogenic CO2 + catastrophic" assumption. 

A major peer-reviewed paper by four senior researchers has exposed grave errors in an earlier paper in a new and unknown journal that had claimed a 97.1% scientific consensus... Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/

There is a only consensus that climate has always changed.

Yeah i thought about that a lot,with the money i invest for  rather small housing in Netherlands/Belgium i could buy myself a forest in Canada,have distant family there that owns nature to enjoy and hunt in and they need a terrain car to be able to oversee it al.

It is hard for me to imagine that kind of freedom,i would like it but i find it hard to "let go" my family.

This is exactly the problem. Humans just don't care about long term issues.

This is exactly why smoking isn't banned and people don't really care about it, yet a couple people dying from a vape pen is huge news and crazy outcry for a ban. One kills quickly and the other doesn't, even if one is 1000s times more dangerous. 

To the OP:

It's up to governments to force companies to control their carbon output. Sure people washing clothes on 30 and using standby mode and eating less meat is good but 71% of the worlds carbon emissions come from 100 companies. They want us to blame each other instead of blaming them for their inefficient output of carbon.

I'm suggesting the theories being thrown about arent necessarily the real ones. Ya know, like suggesting there is no future for teens. Instead the media likes to pick the most extreme scenarios to galvanize people often to support a certain party.

I think its funny people become defensive about science in general when Im talking about the stuff thats clearly bogus. In a nut shell, not all science is equal. I dont think all scientists have come to the same conclusion or recommend the same solutions, thats more vague.

The skeptics on climate change arent really skeptics per se. People can acknowledge it as a reality but not believe the propaganda as well. The repercussions of antivaxers is more obvious. Even the homeless situation has revived some classic diseases.

I think there was always a stigma towards vapes and the recent deaths just gave people an excuse to attack it.

To be fair though, cigarettes arent treated much better. They've become significantly more expensive, there are less options and finding places to smoke becomes more difficult.

The problem with banning stuff is it doesent really work. I think we've learned many times the black market does an excellent job getting stuff on the streets governments ban. Hence, I dont want to ban anything because it creates problems but I also dont want to pay for the healthcare of idiots.

Lastly, its fair to argue our culture is partly to blame for carbon output. People dont necessarily opt to lower their output. Thats why people call celebrities and politicians hypocrites, theyre often the worst offenders.

Sea water moving inland can contaminate fresh water supplies, but that's not a universal truth by any means depending on the area.

People moving inland means either less farmland, more deforestation, or more congested cities, etc, and none are welcome. Some places already have rules about how farmland can be sold. Sometimes only portions of farms can be sold as non farming related, and others, it must remain farmland period. You wouldn't imagine how much farmland is for sale, that isn't selling, because the property is worth a ton in general, yet nobody will pay it, because it must remain a farm, or mostly, and it's nowhere near worth the cost as farmland. Ironic isn't it?

The change in temps, stable weather, rainfall, etc, would also mean it will likely become much more expensive or impossible to farm in some locations, which will almost surely mean a lack or no future farming in those locations. Lack of local food isn't a good thing for an area or a country, and no home grown food is downright scary because of how it could be used against you, especially in a world with less food to go around overall. Countries may have to pay big money to bring food in, or will have to subsidize farmers in a worthy manner to get them to grow, but either way it ends up leading to much higher food prices. Wanting faster internet is nowhere near as important as needing food, and if food is now so expensive you couldn't afford higher speed internet anyway, as well as other things, well, there goes progress.

This also could lead to a big push for urban farming, which would be a massive undertaking, but would alleviate some stress on the rural food supply. This however requires much more water supply from the city, more development, and more congestion, so there's always a downside.

It's never as cut and dry as the media proclaims it to be though. There are places in NA that have seen terrible flooding and have lost entire crops because of it this year. However, in other places, like my parents farm, this years weather was about as perfect as you could ask for, and to say they had a bumper crop would be an understatement. So while some places are yielding lower or losing crops altogether, other places are yielding much higher, and some places will be able to grow that couldn't before, so. For quite a while things will balance themselves out, but whether it goes beyond that is hard to say.

Woah woah woah, you just added substantial additional items to answer my question.

I'm not doubting changes in rainfall, population density increases, etc. These were completely and totally irrelevant to my question though.

I read through the 1st page of this thread, and one of the concerns was how much farm land would be lost because of the rise in sea levels. That just....doesn't make sense.

Be concerned about weather changes and what that might mean (to the applicable farm land as well), but don't include lost farm land as a major reason to specifically be worried about sea levels rising.

NASA seems to place credibility in that 97% figure, I think as an outlet they have more legitimacy over a website that looks like it was designed on Geocities by a teenager in the 90's that ONLY propagates anti-climate change rhetoric in order to reinforce other peoples confirmation biases.
 
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

I mean for shits and giggles, from the website link you provided... They place more credibility in the Catholic Church over empirical scientific evidence, which is just bull-twiddle. - This is why we have people who believe the Earth is flat or that vaccines are toxic... Because people put more credibility in dubious sources of information.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/13/realist-catholic-climate-declaration/

Some areas will see the impacts of climate change far more readily than other geographical areas, that's the reality of it all.

Those in the equatorial areas of the world on islands are feeling the pressures now, today... With increases in global temperatures resulting in higher sea-levels, essentially swallowing up their homes.
Those island states will be the first casualties of climate change and we as western nations will (sadly) need to open up our doors to let them migrate as they are going to be climate refugees.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/theworldpost/wp/2018/10/24/kiribati/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiribati#Environmental_issues

So whilst the "extreme" claims propagated by some (For and against!) can be regarded as bullshit, the issues presented are often very real, it just depends on the time scales we are talking about.