What does Global Warming Mean?

Global warming means VOLATILE WEATHER. This means that inconsistencies grow stronger and the extremes will be more common. For example, some areas will experience harsh droughts and other areas floods or heavy snowstorms. This last year, Western Canada opposed to Eastern Canada was a bit inconsistent in regards to the quality of weather in these regions. The West was a fair amount warmer than the Eastern regions. Also, the Southern part of North America experienced more snow and colder weather than usual. There is strong evidence to show that these changes are a response to the rapid increase in the earths temperature over the last 50 years. Consequences of this increase are: the arctic ice cap is melting, the glaciers are disappearing, the sea level is rising, the oceans are becoming more acidic, and plants and animals are altering their behavior in response to shifting temperatures. It's interesting that humans and our activities are causing a ripple effect to this world. Because we disregard our consideration to the environment, we are effecting so many aspects of this world and some of which are already irreversible. Change has been steady and fairly obvious, so what now? Natures behavior is changing, and it is clear that humans do not hold the tools to react to these changes. Essentially, we are self-destructing. It's interesting to note that sea-level rising before the 20th century was around zero consistently. Since then, sea-levels have rose 20 cm, to 30 cm, to a predicted meter or more within the 21st century. Based on this data the statistics of droughts and floods have increased as well. One thing that is clear in this world is that you can't argue with evidence, so why are we STILL arguing. There was a video I watched not to long ago that broke the concept of global warming into a fairly simplified matrix. Society has two options: to do something about global warming or not to do something about global warming. Withing the matrix there are two factors: Global warming predictions are wrong and nothing happens or Global warming predictions are right and everything anticipated occurs. Now the question society must ask themselves is: Which world would you rather live in?

These are the outcomes in the most simple and extreme of forms. So, given that there are 2 alternative choices to do something (Plan A or Plan B) - each choice has its' consequences: you choose plan A and we do something - society has a 50% chance of enduring a global depression because nothing happened and we spent so much money trying to avoid the uncertainty and anticipation of global warming, and a 50% chance we spent the money and global warming was true so it was money well spent - it's a new world but we are able to adapt. OR we choose Plan B and do nothing - society has a 50% chance of experiencing a wide variety of catastrophes that challenge the fate and well-being of this world (essentially the end of the world), and a 50% chance we were right nothing happened and we spent nothing and nothing changed. Now given the outcomes of the 2 potential choices we could make - society must ask themselves again WHAT WORLD WOULD YOU RATHER LIVE IN AND WHAT RISKS ARE YOU WILLING TO ENDURE BASED ON THE DECISION WE MAKE? Global depression or end of the world????