This is pretty much what all the serious research and academic publications say, it's the media and the political class that turns these research papers into something that they are not. There are very few academics (in the fields that are relevent to the topic) that will state that either the Earth is not warming as a whole or that necessarily means that such warming will continue in the future. The exceptions are provablely biased by political ideologies. Honest scientists can't reliablely predict the weather 20 days from now, and they will be the frist to say that the long term climate models (all of them) are based upon many assumptions about how certain varirables affect the outcome or even what those variables' values are with any precision.
Yes, it does. If it takes three generations for the worst case scenario (+4 degrees C) that the models predict to occur, it can hardly be considered a catastrophe can it? IT's not like humanity ats a whole won't have time to adapt to a (potential) 1.2 meter high rise in the ocean's median level. Even the worst of the poor could walk away from such areas long before that. Nearly every sandy beach in the world would be under low tide, but that's only a catastrophe to sunbathers and surfers.
And I don't own an SUV. I've ridden a 21 speed bicycle to work 250+ days per year to work since May 2nd, 2008. I'm doing my part, but for my health and my checkbook. What are you doing?
Believe it or not but I was actually working in meteorology some 20 years ago. Back then we had rolling 3 week schedules that we refined each day. Obviously the predictions 3 weeks away was very rough, like saying that it would rain in the entire state of Connecticut, which obviously wasn't true, but we knew that it was going to rain around that time in that general area. I'm well aware of the assumptions that must be done and that things will change. That doesn't mean that we didn't have a model that was fairly good. The same applies to larger weather systems. The models aren't perfect but they aren't worthless either.
Magazines like Nature or New Scientist are fairly respected publications and neither of them are sceptical of climate change, even though the do publish cock-ups by scientists when they're found. Are you saying that they too have a political agenda, and goes against good science to push it?
Rising sea level isn't the biggest threat in itself. I'm sure people will have time to get out of the way when the water is coming. Flooded farmland leading to food shortage, ecosystems out of balance and other things are more of a concern I think. That's not something I'd like to leave behind when I go.
I wasn't talking about you specifically. But I'm happy to hear that you're doing your part. So am I. Sadly I don't work close enough to ride my bike to work, but I do commute with public transport, among other things that reduce my footprint. I'm still far above a sustainable level if you look at the web-tests you can do however.